4/23 Yeah, you counter-culture beatniks really emote the truth with
these so-called pics of dead serviceman at http://thememoryhole.org
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/04/23/iraq.photographs.nasa.reut/index.html
I hope when YOU are dead, they showed pictures of YOUR CASKET.
I am just glad it won't be blessed with an American flag.
\_ Here you have before you a live Bush supporter.
Don't get too close, they bite!
\_ you're just saying that liberal crap because you don't really
understand the policy. this should clear it up:
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/102403.asp
\_ despite the policy, i do wonder where all those corpses go
\_ the *only* reason that these photos (or video) are not
released is so that public opinion does not turn against
any post-vietnam war. the gov't doesn't give a shit about
families feelings, let alone their health (e.g., agent
orange, gulf war syndrome, etc). Don't fool yourself into
always accepting the gov't line. "Trust no one". -Mulder
\_ Talk to some of their families, who say they want the public to
know how many are dying.
\_ Look. It's understandable that military families don't want to
lose loved ones, but this is how war is. I am sure _some_ of
the military families dislike Bush and his policies, but so what?
The public is fully aware of how many are dying, it's being
trumpeted by CNN every single fucking day. At any rate,
50,000 >>> 700.
\_ where do you get your 50k figure? about 4 MILLION
died in the vietnam war.
\_ 50k combat US deaths, about 60k total US deaths around
Vietnam. Did you notice that this thread was talking
about US casualties, not total casualties?
\_ Are you counting the *entire* Vietnam war which includes
the time the French were there and we weren't? It was
roughly 2m Vietnamese dead during the time the US was
there. 40:1 is pretty god damned good. This was a war
lost at home, not in the field. If we "lose" in Iraq
it won't be because we lost on the ground. As usual it
will be lost at home because of people like you.
\- Mr. D. Ass: wars are about achieving your
political objective, not maximizing your own to
enemy casualty rate. Rather than win/lose, ask
yourself what was the point of the US involvement
and then answer whether that goal was achieved
and eval whether it was "successful" on those
terms. While you are at it, you may want to
look up what city SGN is the airport code for.
"Let me speak honestly, frankly, -Le Duc Tho to
openheartedly. You are a liar." Super K
--psb
\_ Uhm...did you even read the post you're
replying to? I think you just reiterated his
point, only with a bunch of lame ad hominem
thrown in.
\_ Talk about missing the point.... After the
Tet Offensive, the leftists in America forced
us to finally leave, when in fact that very
same assault was beaten back with minimal
American losses and truly devastating losses
to the enemy. After the TO the enemy had no
reserves or military strength. The war was
over. We had won. Except we didn't because
it was lost at home. We walked away after
one of the biggest military victories in
history and chalked up the whole thing as a
military and political loss. There was never
a military loss. The political loss was
caused by people like the person I replied to
above, at home. --that poster above
\- explaining why the war unfolded as it
did or what were the side effects of the
war whike interesting history is diff q
than "was the war a success". if the war
was conducted to prevent a communist
victory, well that didnt happen, did it.
you can say "enough was done to prevent
the dominos from falling" but that also
opens the response that "the domino
theory as stated was wrong" since
marginal changes in the balance of power
didnt seem to be destabilizing. so you
tell me first "what was the point of the
american intervention in vietnam"? and
then we'll talk about whether that was
successful. Obviously the North `won' the
Civil War in the sense that the union was
preserved, slavery abolished, and ante-
bellum souther culture and economics
changed. However, the Union also had
vastly higher wounded/killed. --psb
\_ Good duck. Back to the point: if we
had stayed after the TO and not let
ourselves be mislead by the left in
this country, the North would have
been beaten back and Vietnam would
most likely be a mirror of what SK
has become today. Democratic,
industrial, capitalist, generally
successful. We won Vietnam on the
ground, but lost it at home.
\_ S. Vietnam invaded, Cambodia
invaded, Afghanistan invaded,
Angola and Mozambique Communist
revolutions, Nicarauga
communist revolution
... seems to me the domino
theory was right. The Soviets
realized they could not
contest NATO in Europe so
they pursued the third world.
This is history of the
Cold War 101.
\- how did any of these affect
US security? do you think the
break down of sino-soviet
harmony in the 1960, becoming
smewhat open with the conflict
on the ussuri river caused the
a shift in the balance of
power between E and W? If the
"loss of china" didnt cause much
security problems for the SU,
dont you think it is odd to
suggest angola, nic. cuba etc
especially mattered in terms of
the "big picture"? afganistan
arguably was a bit of a change
in doctrine. --psb
\_ If you can't formulate
an explanation yourself
I don't think there's
much point in explaining
it. But Afghanistan
for example
offered a land bridge to
the middle east and
the goal was the
warm water ports of
Pakistan. The outlook
was pretty bleak for
the US in the 1970s.
\- On vietnam see
Leslie Gelb and Richard K Betts:
The Irony of Vietnam and Bernard
Brodie, War and Politics ... "many
grave ... decisions concerning 'nam
were made on assumptions or premises
which would not withstand any kind of
logical scrutiny but were simply never
challenged" ... e.g. domino theory.
For similar on say Afganistan see
Stephen Van Evera's ppr called
something like "why states believe
stupid things." Of course Waltz'79
is an exceptional book. It has a
reference: "as some saw early in the
struggle, and as most saw later on,
in terms of global politics little was
at stake in vietnam (Steossinger'76,
Chap 8, shows this was Kissinger's
view)." --psb
\_ Quoting a bunch of folks out of
context doesn't add anything or
make a point. It does kind of turn
me on though and makes you look
very pseudo brainy. Can I have your
love child?
\_ Let me get this straight: with 30 years of
hindsight, you honestly believe that Vietnam was
a war worth fighting? That we should have stuck
it out just to put yet another notch in the win
column? I find that appalling, and I'd like to
know-- why?
\_ I am not the poster above, but whether Vietnam
was worth fighting depends on whether you believe
the containment strategy was a good idea.
It's a good question, and I am not sure I know
the answer. Certainly rejecting Vietnam as a bad
idea just because a lot of people died seems wrong.
-- ilyas
\_ I am not the poster above.
While containment is arguably an ok idea,
Vietnam turned out to be a bad place to do
it. American arrogance and racism alienating
the Vietnamese did not help. Should've
recognized the mistake and futility earlier
and taken a step back and done the containment
at the border of Thailand.
\_ Your argument is different from the guy above
you, he says: "Vietnam itself was a bad war",
while you say something much weaker:
"Vietnam execution had mistakes". Certainly
this is true. I don't believe there was
institutional racism in Vietnam, but I am
not a student of that war (I find it to be
kind of a boring war, in fact I find all
American wars to be boring for some reason).
-- ilyas
\_ Sure, but execution is almost
everything. Your execution should not
be contrary to your purpose for the war.
Also, one has to ask if US's concern
for the livelihood of the Vietnamese
or just view it as a pawn in a global
fight against communism. Did US really
cared if 1 million or 4 million
vietnamese died? At that point in
time racism was still institutionalized
in America itself, why do you not
believe it's in Vietnam too?
\_ 25 million Russians and
10 million Germans died in
WWII - was this also a racist
war? As with all Communist
insurrections, the war is cast
in terms national liberation
by a cadre at the top. Once
the fighting has ended the
common people and footsoldiers
realize they have
been duped and, if they are
not subsequently assasinated,
find themselves living as
serfs in a totalitarian
society.
\_ Nazi belief in racial
superiority certainly played
a role in the decision to
invade Russia. I don't know
what you mean by "racist war".
I did not say that racism is
the sole driver of the wars.
\_ Vietnam was conceptually similar to Korea - was
the Korean War a good idea? Considering
S. Korea is the 11th largest economy in the world
I'd say so. Vietnam was won. South Vietnam
was free and democratic for two years until the
leftists in Congress that Kerry epitomized
decided to
withdrawl all military and financial support
to Saigon. N. Vietnam, backed by the Soviets and
China, violated the Treaty of Paris and invaded
not only S. Vietnam but also Cambodia.
\_ your arithmetic expressions holds true. so at what point
are the deaths too much? 7000?
\_ One wonders if the US pulled out of Vietnam due to casualty
aversion or something else. -- ilyas
\_ Because of leftists in gov't and Congress.
\_ Yeah, this is just like Vietnam.
\_ Soldiers who die in the line of duty deserve to be honored, both
in private ceremonies and in public. There is no shame in dying
for your country, nor is there shame in sending men and women to
die for their country. Either take pride in them and honor them
publicly, or admit that you have not the courage of your
convictions and you've asked them to die for a farce.
\_ there is plenty of shame in sending men and women to die
needlessly for their country.
\_ Don't blame the soldier, blame the Commander(s) in Chief
\_ Starting with jimmie carter who proved to the islamic
fascists that terrorism can work again a super power.
\_ rofl, terrorism has always worked. most rebellions
start out as "terrorism" |
http://csua.com/feed/