Political Crossfire Forums

[SpartanPhalanx]

jimmyz wrote: SpartanPhalanx wrote: timmtc wrote: Quote: Timmtc's probably from West Vancouver ..... where they're all out of touch with reality period......

Hah, keep being ignorant and useless. I am more in touch with reality then you ever will be. My father was a diplomat, I lived overseas for the first 9 years of my life. My father dealt with the Canadian military, and enforced Canadian foreign policy. I am also getting my degree and after my masters in political science. Do not say I am out of touch with reality, you're just a selfish idiot who is more then obviously ignorant. You make canadians look bad, congrats.

Have you ever been in the Canadian forces Timmy?.....Do you have any idea about the state of Canada's military? ...... maybe your dad does....hell from what you typed above, he may be complicit in the dismantling of that country's military. If he was , and he's your father, that makes you both idiots.....

You're far too narrow minded and selfish to succeed in P.Science. Selfish because all you posted was a diatribe about how ofended you were that I said you were from W.Vancouver and completely ignored my points in the rest of my post. Narrow minded because all you spout is right wing non-sense. I think you'd do better to finish your degree in the U.S ....hey they might even get an intern posting if you're lucky and then you can drop your drawers for all manner of top Washington officials.......:-)


You need to grow up a little Timmy ... start growing a pair and quit bending over for your giant neighbour to the south every time you post something.

Timmtc - Dont pay Spartty much attention.He has more chips on his shoulder than just about anyone in this forum.He hates the very skin and its color that surrounds his tiny intellect.He will bash the US,Canada,Israel,whomever, any chance he can get.SpartanBendOver gets off on this forum due to a lack of a real life and has an inferiority complex big enough to fill the oceans.In actuality he is a short,balding loser living off of his family in the wastelands of northern Greece.

Pay him no attention,for your own good.


You know Jimmy, I don't even know who you are. Something you said some time ago rings a bell ... very vaguely though....you obviously make no impression on this board whatsoever.......:-)

As far as my opinions go....this is a political discussion forum moron...that's what people do...criticise and be criticised....I have no problem with critical discussion....evidently you do .... I don't whine and complain when someone lays it on....if you don't like it bugger off to a porn site and entertain yourself that way....... :twisted:

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: Secondly, this "punk from the states" knows that your military is small enough to get its ass kicked in a war with the U.S.

Really? As small as it is now it was smalller before WWI and look what happened there...or WWII. Besides, it's not the size of the force that counts, it's how you use it.

As for your points trying to defend you assertions that the locals never win, in all of the cases I pointed to they did...regardless of wether they were outright military victories or not. And don't be too fast to discount Vietnam...the point still stands the US was forced to leave Vietnam...they lost, no matter what spin you put on it...or in your world Vietnam isn't controlled by the communists??

Now I'm not saying the US can't win in Iraq...I'm just saying chances are they won't.

[DEFCON 1]

URallIgnorant wrote: Quote: Secondly, this "punk from the states" knows that your military is small enough to get its ass kicked in a war with the U.S.

Really? As small as it is now it was smalller before WWI and look what happened there...or WWII. Besides, it's not the size of the force that counts, it's how you use it.

As for your points trying to defend you assertions that the locals never win, in all of the cases I pointed to they did...regardless of wether they were outright military victories or not. And don't be too fast to discount Vietnam...the point still stands the US was forced to leave Vietnam...they lost, no matter what spin you put on it...or in your world Vietnam isn't controlled by the communists??

Now I'm not saying the US can't win in Iraq...I'm just saying chances are they won't.

The US withdrew from Vietnam not because of the North Vietnamese but because of politicians running the war and losing the will of the American people on the cause . Don't think we did not have the fire power to turn North Vietnam into a car wash.

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: The US withdrew from Vietnam not because of the North Vietnamese but because of politicians running the war and losing the will of the American people on the cause . Don't think we did not have the fire power to turn North Vietnam into a car wash.

EXACTLY! I have said all along the US has the military to flip any nation on it's head...doesn't mean it gets to do it. Should the US ever become a totalitarian state, look out! But for now it isn't and the people within the nation can only tolerate so many casualties...once it reaches it's limit, that's it...time to pull the plug...this would be the undoing in Iraq as well.

[SpartanPhalanx]

Chronic Thinker wrote:


Quote: I wrote:
To begin with, we didn't lose the Vietnam War. We didn't fight it as well as we could have (mainly because we had military operational decisions being made by politicians worried about re-election), but we still won the war. A cease-fire was signed in 1973. South Vietnam lasted for two years after we left. Our goal of preserving South Vietnam had been accomplished at the time that we withdrew. As far as the American involvement in this conflict is concerned, this was another Korean war. Hell, it was even better than Korea (we only took one-third of the casualties). Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese judged (correctly) that Vietnam had weighed so heavily on us politically that we would not come back if they invaded. Thus, we won the Vietnam War. We just didn't come back for the new war two years later because of the political fallout.


Sorry Chronic but I had to re-read the above at least 3 times in an effort to absorb the lunacy of your post.
what do mean by "preserving South Vietnam?"......at the expense of over what? over 2 million dead north Vietnamese? and for what???..."Thus you won the war????"

The Americans went running out of there with their proverbial tale between their legs when the North Vietnamese tanks came rumbling down main street in Saigon....whether the US admin threw in the towel years before Vietnam became a single country or not is irrelevent.The Yanks had caused nothing but murder and mayhem and genetic disfigurement of the local population(agent Orange) on a massive scale and you get on your soap-box and tout how you beat the Vietnamese?

what are you on man?

[DEFCON 1]

URallIgnorant wrote: Quote: The US withdrew from Vietnam not because of the North Vietnamese but because of politicians running the war and losing the will of the American people on the cause . Don't think we did not have the fire power to turn North Vietnam into a car wash.

EXACTLY! I have said all along the US has the military to flip any nation on it's head...doesn't mean it gets to do it. Should the US ever become a totalitarian state, look out! But for now it isn't and the people within the nation can only tolerate so many casualties...once it reaches it's limit, that's it...time to pull the plug...this would be the undoing in Iraq as well.

Oh really, maybe you should go back a couple hundred years and read the casualty counts. You're not talking about France here.

[DEFCON 1]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: Chronic Thinker wrote:


Quote: I wrote:
To begin with, we didn't lose the Vietnam War. We didn't fight it as well as we could have (mainly because we had military operational decisions being made by politicians worried about re-election), but we still won the war. A cease-fire was signed in 1973. South Vietnam lasted for two years after we left. Our goal of preserving South Vietnam had been accomplished at the time that we withdrew. As far as the American involvement in this conflict is concerned, this was another Korean war. Hell, it was even better than Korea (we only took one-third of the casualties). Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese judged (correctly) that Vietnam had weighed so heavily on us politically that we would not come back if they invaded. Thus, we won the Vietnam War. We just didn't come back for the new war two years later because of the political fallout.


Sorry Chronic but I had to re-read the above at least 3 times in an effort to absorb the lunacy of your post.
what do mean by "preserving South Vietnam?"......at the expense of over what? over 2 million dead north Vietnamese? and for what???..."Thus you won the war????"

The Americans went running out of there with their proverbial tale between their legs when the North Vietnamese tanks came rumbling down main street in Saigon....the Yanks had caused nothing but murder and mayhem and genetic disfigurement of the local population(agent Orange) on a massive scale and you get on your soap-box and tout how you beat the Vietnamese?

what are you on man?

Quote: genetic disfigurement of the local population(agent Orange) :rotf:

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: Oh really, maybe you should go back a couple hundred years and read the casualty counts. You're not talking about France here.

What do you mean here?

[Nico]

What's the name of the US base in Vietnam at the moment, all you defeat denyers? Exactly

[Nico]

As for agent Orange, if it can disfigure our troops [and their children]who got to come home , then there's good odds it would do the same or worse to those who lived there.

[DEFCON 1]

Anaximander wrote: As for agent Orange, if it can disfigure our troops [and their children]who got to come home , then there's good odds it would do the same or worse to those who lived there.


How does it damage the population more than the guys handling it daily or the guys in NJ that made it ? Think man. The CDC studied Agent Orange. It was two common insecticides used in the US before Vietnam.

Would I want it sprayed on me? Hell no? It gives you zits.

[Nico]

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010323083212data_trunc_sys.shtml


I claimed the odds were high that these effects were from agent orange. The study also inNZ of fire fighters of an ICI chemical fire here [dioxin], also highlighted very similar incidence of cloracne, birth defects, psychological illness. Dioxin accumulates over time, is carcinogenic and causes genetic damage that can be passed on according to a number of recent studies.

[DEFCON 1]

Anaximander wrote: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010323083212data_trunc_sys.shtml


I claimed the odds were high that these effects were from agent orange. The study also inNZ of fire fighters of an ICI chemical fire here [dioxin], also highlighted very similar incidence of cloracne, birth defects, psychological illness. Dioxin accumulates over time, is carcinogenic and causes genetic damage that can be passed on according to a number of recent studies.

Your link does not agree with what I think you just said. :?

[Nico]

DEFCON 1 wrote: Anaximander wrote: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010323083212data_trunc_sys.shtml


I claimed the odds were high that these effects were from agent orange. The study also inNZ of fire fighters of an ICI chemical fire here [dioxin], also highlighted very similar incidence of cloracne, birth defects, psychological illness. Dioxin accumulates over time, is carcinogenic and causes genetic damage that can be passed on according to a number of recent studies.

Your link does not agree with what I think you just said. :?

No, the link expressed the same thing I did, probability. I was looking for something that was as unbiased as possible. That's what makes me a cynic, putting the links together. If it looks like an apple, tastes like an apple, it's probably an apple.

Unfortunately for the soldiers here, the links are denied while the bodies and deformities stack up.

I also know how you feel about information clearinghouse.

[DEFCON 1]

Quote: the links are denied while the bodies and deformities stack up

WTF is that?

[The American]

Saviz wrote: Ye, we can't charge him... however some protestor could blow his brains all over his wifes new blouse...

In order to accomplish this, you would have to go through the backbone of the country, people like me. Remarks like this usually start out as being choked up, we do not take to kindly to assassins.

Trig.

[Chronic Thinker]

URallIgnorant wrote: Really? As small as it is now it was smalller before WWI and look what happened there...or WWII.
In WWI, the Canadian troops were still a part of the British military. They rarely fought without them. In World War II, they were independent, but still largely fought under the umbrella of the British. I'm not saying that the Canadians didn't fight honorably in either war, but those two examples are not exactly examples of great Canadian military strength as much as it is an example of the competency of the individual troops, considering that the British and the Americans played much larger roles.

URallIgnorant wrote: Besides, it's not the size of the force that counts, it's how you use it.
That's true, to a certain extent. However, considering that the entire Canadian military numbers around 80,000 (60,000 active-duty, 20,000 civilian employees), I doubt that it would be able to do much against a U.S. military of 1.4 million.

URallIgnorant wrote: As for your points trying to defend you assertions that the locals never win, in all of the cases I pointed to they did...regardless of wether they were outright military victories or not.
I admit that three of the cases that you mentioned were correct. However, my point was the locals rarely ever win guerrilla wars, at least without American intervention. Some of the cases you mentioned, such as the war in Indonesia, were not guerrilla wars. Other cases that you mentioned, such as the war in Kenya, were absolute lies. The British completely put down that rebellion and granted them independence seven years after the revolt had been defeated. One of them (Vietnam) was not a loss, as I've explained. The war in Afghanistan was successful only because the Afghans were heavily funded and armed by the CIA. The two others that you mentioned (Angola and Mozambique) were the result of military coups in Portugal, not the result of anything pertaining to the conflict. And the most telling example of all is the British victory in the Iraqi guerrilla war of the 1920s. The fact remains that history is not on the side of the Iraqi insurgents.

URallIgnorant wrote: And don't be too fast to discount Vietnam...the point still stands the US was forced to leave Vietnam...
The embassy staff was forced to leave Vietnam, two years after the war had ended and the military had left. Using that logic, you could also say that we've lost a war to Iran. :roll:

URallIgnorant wrote: they lost, no matter what spin you put on it...
Then why is it that you have been unable to counter my "spin," which is made of nothing but facts, with facts of your own?

URallIgnorant wrote: or in your world Vietnam isn't controlled by the communists??
I never said that Vietnam wasn't controlled by the Communists. However, in my world (which happens to be called Earth; what's yours called?), the communists took over in 1975, after defeating the South Vietnamese. In my world, which happens to hold about 6 billion people (how many are in yours?), a cease-fire was signed after intensive American bombing of the North (Operation Linebacker II) and American combat troops withdrew in 1973, leaving behind the American embassy as the only American presence in the country. It's time for you to step out of your anti-American matrix. Welcome to the real world.

DEFCON 1 wrote: The US withdrew from Vietnam not because of the North Vietnamese but because of politicians running the war and losing the will of the American people on the cause.
I agree, in part, but there's more to it than that. The politicians were running the war. That's why it dragged on for eight years, when it could have been won much more quickly. However, Nixon did not just bow to the political pressure and pull out. Remember, he was elected in 1968 on the promise that he would get us out of Vietnam. This did not happen until his second term. Why didn't he try to pull out in his first term? I mean, that would have sent his popularity through the roof. McGovern wouldn't have even carried Massachusetts in 1972. The answer is that he didn't do it because we hadn't won yet. If we had pulled out at any time before we did, South Vietnam would have fallen then, not two years after we left. After the cease-fire had been signed in 1973, we had accomplished our goal. South Vietnam had been preserved. There was no more reason for American troops to stay. Why do you think it is that the North Vietnamese waited two years after we left before they invaded? It's obvious that they had lost the war with the United States, so they had to wait until the U.S. was too far away to come to South Vietnam's rescue.

URallIgnorant wrote: EXACTLY! I have said all along the US has the military to flip any nation on it's head...doesn't mean it gets to do it. Should the US ever become a totalitarian state, look out! But for now it isn't and the people within the nation can only tolerate so many casualties...once it reaches it's limit, that's it...time to pull the plug...this would be the undoing in Iraq as well.
Yep, that's the same flawed logic that Osama bin Laden was using when he attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It almost worked. Imagine if Kerry had won. :shudders:

Spartan Phalanx wrote: Sorry Chronic but I had to re-read the above at least 3 times in an effort to absorb the lunacy of your post.
All right, I'm going to explain this one more time, real simple-like, so even somebody like you can understand. :roll:

Spartan Phalanx wrote: what do mean by "preserving South Vietnam?"
I mean that the goal of the American military in South Vietnam was to prevent the country from falling into the hands of the North Vietnamese and their guerrilla extension, the Vietcong. Are you still with me? Let me know if your brain needs to take a break.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: .....at the expense of over what? over 2 million dead north Vietnamese?
To begin with, that number sounds a little high. Care to back that up? Secondly, even if that figure is correct (which I doubt), that would be the enemy's cost, not ours. Are you seriously trying to tell me that we lost in Vietnam because we killed too many enemies? :-|

Spartan Phalanx wrote: "Thus you won the war????"
Yes. The goal of the American involvement in Vietnam was to prevent South Vietnam from falling to the North. A cease-fire was signed in 1973, one which ended the war and kept the South of out Communist hands. Since our goals had been accomplished, our combat troops left having won the war. Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese started a new war two years later, and we weren't around to stop it.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: The Americans went running out of there with their proverbial tale between their legs when the North Vietnamese tanks came rumbling down main street in Saigon....
The only Americans that left Vietnam when the Communists rolled into Saigon was the staff of the American embassy. American combat troops had left two years earlier. Are you telling me that we "ran" from Vietnam because we evacuated an embassy? Using that logic, we've also "ran" from Iran (1981) and Afghanistan (1989).

Spartan Phalanx wrote: whether the US admin threw in the towel years before Vietnam became a single country or not is irrelevent.
Your blindness is becoming highly irritating. We never "threw in the towel." The North Vietnamese were forced to sign a cease-fire and we left when our goal had been accomplished. The war was over. We had won. Unfortunately, the North started a new war, and we didn't make it back in time.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: The Yanks had caused nothing but murder and mayhem and genetic disfigurement of the local population(agent Orange) on a massive scale and you get on your soap-box and tout how you beat the Vietnamese?
More anti-American vitriol. :roll:

DEFCON already answered you on the Agent Orange.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: what are you on man?
A little something called the truth. You should try it some time. :wink:

Anaximander wrote: What's the name of the US base in Vietnam at the moment, all you defeat denyers? Exactly
Huh? :-|

I didn't know that we were required to have a military base everywhere we win a war. I guess we must have lost in France, too. No US base there. :roll:

[URallIgnorant]

Quote: In WWI, the Canadian troops were still a part of the British military.

Not quite correct, Canadian troops were Canadian troops, they fought under the British military but were eventually brought under Canadian control with the Canadian corps.

Quote: That's true, to a certain extent. However, considering that the entire Canadian military numbers around 80,000 (60,000 active-duty, 20,000 civilian employees), I doubt that it would be able to do much against a U.S. military of 1.4 million.

I think you missed my point...Canada has never had a large standing army during peace but in times of war the numbers swell dramatically. At the end of World War II, Canada possessed the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world, as well as the largest all-volunteer army ever fielded.

Now to address the Vietnam issue...you are incorrect on a number of points as well. I could go into arguing them with you but I see it is very futile...you have your own ideas on how things happened...regardless of the facts.

[SpartanPhalanx]

Quote: Chronic Thinker wrote:

To begin with, that number sounds a little high. Care to back that up? Secondly, even if that figure is correct (which I doubt), that would be the enemy's cost, not ours. Are you seriously trying to tell me that we lost in Vietnam because we killed too many enemies?

A bit high? ..... actually they're a bit low.....I didn't factor in the civilian death toll nor did i include the 350.000 civilian deaths in Laos by U.S bombing nor the over 600.000 deaths in Cambodia also by U.S bombing raids.

We're talking CIVILIANS here numnuts.....

here's a few links with which to aquaint yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4401617,00.html

and this one's a beauty .... all the military and civilian casualties from both sides. Of course, we all know there were NO civilian deaths on the U.S side all the easier for you to figure out....:-)

"The Hanoi government revealed on April 4 1995 that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2,000,000 in the north, and 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war. These figures were deliberately falsified during the war by the North Vietnamese Communists to avoid demoralizing the population."

That's a full 12-13% of the population! ....

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html


And you still lost the war ...... oh you can tell yourself anything if you want to believe it. America lacked the political will to defeat North Vietnam. Plain and simple. Victors don't withdraw from the battlefield.

By the same token, you probably think you're winning in Iraq today as well , although time will tell where Iraq is concerned, but the daily suicide bombings and mortar attacks are testing the morale of the Americans on a scale reminiscent of.....you guessed it.....Vietnam....... :-D

[DEFCON 1]

It had nothing to do with political will dumba$$ :lol: :lol:

And it was not a war.