Back Stabbing The Armed Forces. - Page 2

bullseyebarb · 20-01-2007, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

Oil shakermaker if they had no oil, we would be trying to sell them cement they have enough sand of their own, and maybe de-salination plants, on second thoughts we would probably be giving them aid, as without oil they would have no money to buy owt.

If they had no oil, they wouldn't be able to fund terrorism. Hence, I doubt we'd give a damn.

steeljack · 20-01-2007, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

No, they didn't. Viet Nam was not lost on the ground but in Washington. And many of the same rancid politicians are still up there and ready to repeat the '70's. Millions of people were slaughtered in Southeast Asia as a result of what they did then. Only difference is that the North Vietnamese had no interest in attacking America.

You are right......our kids will be paying for this - if we repeat the same mistakes we made back then.

Barb, Dont you mean some of the rancid politicians who never saw/avoided Vietnam are repeating the same folly

bullseyebarb · 20-01-2007, 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

Barb, Dont you mean some of the rancid politicians who never saw/avoided Vietnam are repeating the same folly

I mean what I say. Far too many of these politicians stand for absolutely nothing beyond their own re-election. Who was up on The Hill then and who is still there now? Shall we go back and take a vote count? This is not a partisan issue. It's a matter of will.

steeljack · 20-01-2007, 20:39

off the top of my head , the Senior Senator from the state of Massachusetts springs to mind .......

bullseyebarb · 20-01-2007, 20:46

Ah, Senator Bartender, (as my in-laws from MA refer to him.) Personally, I prefer The Swimmer. As good a reason as any for term limits.

Ianto.W. · 21-01-2007, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

If they had no oil, they wouldn't be able to fund terrorism. Hence, I doubt we'd give a damn.

I already said that barb

Quote:

Ianto.W.on second thoughts we would probably be giving them aid, as without oil they would have no money to buy owt.

Billcat · 21-01-2007, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

No, they didn't. Viet Nam was not lost on the ground but in Washington. And many of the same rancid politicians are still up there and ready to repeat the '70's. Millions of people were slaughtered in Southeast Asia as a result of what they did then. Only difference is that the North Vietnamese had no interest in attacking America.

You are right......our kids will be paying for this - if we repeat the same mistakes we made back then.

Millions of people? Oh DO tell! In Vietnam? What "histories" are you reading?

The Vietnamese people certainly did win their independence on the ground, through the tactics of guerilla warfare. The Vietnamese people, as a group, didn't want the French there, nor did they want us there. While they may not have been able to beat these far risher and more powerful countries, they didn't have to. They just wanted their freedom, the right to decide for themselves what was best for Vietnam. They hung on and outlasted us, much as the Americans did versus the British during the Revolutionary War.

Nobody ever had a workable solution for winning in a country where the inhabitants simply did not want a foreign army on their soil - so long as those inhabitants managed to keep some military force in the field! That's why guerilla warfare works - be it in Vietnam or Iraq.

As an American, I don't want other countries interfering in my life; if I were an Iraqi, I would feel the same way. That's the biggest lesson we failed to learn in Vietnam.

bullseyebarb · 21-01-2007, 19:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billcat

Millions of people? Oh DO tell! In Vietnam? What "histories" are you reading?

The Vietnamese people certainly did win their independence on the ground, through the tactics of guerilla warfare. The Vietnamese people, as a group, didn't want the French there, nor did they want us there. While they may not have been able to beat these far risher and more powerful countries, they didn't have to. They just wanted their freedom, the right to decide for themselves what was best for Vietnam. They hung on and outlasted us, much as the Americans did versus the British during the Revolutionary War.

Nobody ever had a workable solution for winning in a country where the inhabitants simply did not want a foreign army on their soil - so long as those inhabitants managed to keep some military force in the field! That's why guerilla warfare works - be it in Vietnam or Iraq.

As an American, I don't want other countries interfering in my life; if I were an Iraqi, I would feel the same way. That's the biggest lesson we failed to learn in Vietnam.

You don't pay attention! I said millions died in SOUTHEAST ASIA. Laos, Viet Nam......and, apparently, you haven't heard of the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The aim over there was to stop the spread of Communism. South Viet Nam wanted to be free. Just as the majority of Iraqis wish to be free. Military action is only one part of the overall picture, which also includes diplomacy and economics.

Ianto.W. · 21-01-2007, 19:26

The lessons all autocratic nations fail to heed is, YOU CANNOT DEFEAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Billcat · 22-01-2007, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

You don't pay attention! I said millions died in SOUTHEAST ASIA. Laos, Viet Nam......and, apparently, you haven't heard of the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The aim over there was to stop the spread of Communism. South Viet Nam wanted to be free. Just as the majority of Iraqis wish to be free. Military action is only one part of the overall picture, which also includes diplomacy and economics.

I "don't pay attention?" Utter nonsense, courtesy of bullseyebarb! I deliberately ignored your silly claim, just to see where you would go. Ignoring nonsensical, hyperbole-inflated claims is a common debating technique, as it allows - indeed, encourages - the person making those specious claims the opportunity to fully claim an indefensible position.

bullseyebarb, you are the very first person I have encountered who has arrived at the rather unique conclusion that the United States' decision to leave Vietnam somehow caused the Pol Pot regime outrages. If you want to provide some proof of this rather outrageous claim, go for it. While you are at it, why not blame the USA for Idi Amin, the Armenian genocide, and every other outrage committed in the 20th century?

South Vietnam wanted to be free? Correction - ALL of Vietnam wanted to be free. Free of the French, free of the Americans who came in after the French, free to be Vietnam. South Vietnam was an artificial concept, which existed only because of the French, the USA, a ton of money, and some very corrupt Vietnamese leaders who ran incompetent, unsustainable regimes for a short time. Ngo Dinh Diem refused the scheduled 1956 countrywide election to democratically choose a leader for all of Vietnam. Later, he was ousted, killed in a CIA-backed coup, and replaced with Nguyen Thieu. So much for US attempts to create democracy in Vietnam!

Essentially, all we managed to do in Vietnam was to spend billions, kill many thousands and prolong the Vietnamese war for independence - and to harm the name of the USA in a large part of the world! As in Iraq, we were the foreign invaders.

Ianto.W. · 22-01-2007, 12:08

Quote:

Billcat, ALL of Vietnam wanted to be free. Free of the French, free of the Americans who came in after the French.

Who were both sent packing via the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. No as you rightly say Billcat you can not blame the USA for all the worlds ill's, as some amongst us would have us believe.

bullseyebarb · 22-01-2007, 20:45

1.5 million killed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge alone. At least 1 million South Vietnamese sent to "re-education camps" after the fall of Saigon, where there were starved and tortured horribly. Many more fled the country. They died at sea or were murdered by Thai pirates. I don't think we'll ever have a full count of all who died in the region as a whole. Two million plus is a conservative estimate. Millions more with ruined lives. Do you really think the South Vietnamese were better off under Communist rule? Would the South Koreans have been likewise better off under a united Communist regime? Selective moral outrage is for those who haven't had to live under such circumstances.

Ianto.W. · 22-01-2007, 21:45

The aircraft that delivered the Napalm and associated equiptment to Vietnam, also brought the occupied bodybags out of Vietnam, if nothing else good came out of the end of the 'war' this has ceased.

steeljack · 22-01-2007, 21:51

seems odd that the Vietnamese and Cambodians had a problem with the US but have no problems with being the number one and two destinations for European and Australian child molesters, suppose it takes all sorts

mr flibble · 22-01-2007, 22:02

I cant believe i am seeing posts saying 'why are we still out there' and 'bring them all home'.

that has to be the single worst thing that we could do.

i am sick to death of people complaining about our soldiers and airmen dieing while we are at war. what the hell do you join the armed forces for? oh yes thats right most people join because its an easy option with good pay, low living costs.

im ex royal air force and my partner is a helicopter pilot in the RAF as well, and although i would not like to have her die she joined up knowing full well she might have to fight and die for her country or as it might be somebody elses.

The reasons we are in iraq and other countrys dont matter now because the fact is we are there.

we destoyed iraq on our way in and it would be totally and unquestionably wrong for us to now just leave. it is our responcibility to stay untill the people of iraq have a some what stable situation in which they can govern there own country freely and police in a just a honest way.

Yes i admit our troops are not getting the things they need to fight and work properly and that is an issue, but our armed forces didnt get the things they needed in WW2 or WW1 and we did bloody well with out them.

I am very proud to say we have what in my opinion is the best army, air force and navy in the world and the most experianced.

and as for them using oil to fund terrorism...are you insane? iraq didnt and has never funded terrorism and certainly had NO connections with al-quiada or osama bin ladin. why? because saddam and most of iraq hate there guts because they follow a different stream of religion.

as for the incident with the apache helicopter incident, the wings are designed to be able to carry one troop on each side with a special attachment for use in an emergancy, what should they have done? use the apache and save time to save a fellow soldier or wait for a merlin and waste time?