Political Crossfire Forums

[URallIgnorant]

DEFCON 1 wrote: It had nothing to do with political will dumba$$ :lol: :lol:

And it was not a war.

Well, yes it was a war...between North and South Vietnam. For the US it's called a 'conflict'. The US never formally declared a war so technically there was no war for them to lose. However their objectives of stopping communism sure fell short there.

[DEFCON 1]

URallIgnorant wrote: DEFCON 1 wrote: It had nothing to do with political will dumba$$ :lol: :lol:

And it was not a war.

Well, yes it was a war...between North and South Vietnam. For the US it's called a 'conflict'. The US never formally declared a war so technically there was no war for them to lose. However their objectives of stopping communism sure fell short there.

Thank you for agreeing with me even though you can't put it into words

[Chronic Thinker]

URallIgnorant wrote: 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.
Actually, it is correct. I never said that they weren't Canadian. I said that they were still in the British military, which they were.

URallIgnorant wrote: 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.
Actually, your point was that it wasn't the number of troops, but the quality of troops that mattered, which is true to a certain extent. However, with the number troops that the United States could field vs. the number that Canada could field, U.S. troops would have to have extremely poor training to lose that war. It's true that in a hypothetical Canadian-American war, the Canadian military would grow. But then, so would the American military. And we have nine times as many people to increase it with. :wink:

URallIgnorant wrote: 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.
Regardless of the facts? :-|

My entire argument has been built on facts. Your argument has been built on your unshakable ideology that says the United States lost in Vietnam, which ignores the facts that I used to show that the U.S. didn't lose in Vietnam. Trust me, if you could have refuted them, you would have done so already. You're wrong. Just admit it.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: 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
You expect me to believe you when your only sources are the Guardian, a known liberally-biased tabloid/newspaper, and the Communist government of Vietnam? :rotf:

Spartan Phalanx wrote: 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.
This is where we could really use a *shaking head* emoticon, if any of the moderators are reading this. You still don't get it. At the time that we withdrew, South Vietnam was no longer a battlefield. The war was over. What part of that do you not understand? Your statement is the same as saying that the United States lost World War I when Germany took over France because we had withdrawn from that country.

Spartan, I honestly feel more pity for you than scorn. It's sad that, when your ideology has been reduced to falsehood by facts and logic, you resort to parroting that ideology because you cannot use either facts or logic to prove that you are right.

Spartan Phalanx wrote: 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
Well, in that case, I'd say that we're well on the road to victory. :-D

[URallIgnorant]

Chronic Thinker wrote: URallIgnorant wrote: 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.
Actually, it is correct. I never said that they weren't Canadian. I said that they were still in the British military, which they were.

No, they weren't, they were a Canadian military with their own units, officers, insignia etc... The British millitary pulled it's last troops out of Canada in the late 1800's (from the West coast). They were Canadian through and through.



Quote: URallIgnorant wrote: 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.
Actually, your point was that it wasn't the number of troops, but the quality of troops that mattered, which is true to a certain extent. However, with the number troops that the United States could field vs. the number that Canada could field, U.S. troops would have to have extremely poor training to lose that war. It's true that in a hypothetical Canadian-American war, the Canadian military would grow. But then, so would the American military. And we have nine times as many people to increase it with. :wink:

Not my original point. But talk of this is useless, the US military could take Canada, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Quote: URallIgnorant wrote: 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.
Regardless of the facts? :-|

My entire argument has been built on facts. Your argument has been built on your unshakable ideology that says the United States lost in Vietnam, which ignores the facts that I used to show that the U.S. didn't lose in Vietnam. Trust me, if you could have refuted them, you would have done so already. You're wrong. Just admit it.

Why, you don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong, and that's my whole point. I could sit here and waste my time reaserching and finding references and writing critiques on your points...but in the end it will be all for nought.

[Chronic Thinker]

URallIgnorant wrote: No, they weren't, they were a Canadian military with their own units, officers, insignia etc... The British millitary pulled it's last troops out of Canada in the late 1800's (from the West coast). They were Canadian through and through.
You still don't get what I'm saying. Yes, I know that they were Canadian. However, they were still under the overall control of the British military.

URallIgnorant wrote: Not my original point.
Yes, it was. Do I need to drag up your post on the last page?

URallIgnorant wrote: But talk of this is useless, the US military could take Canada, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.
Finally, something that we agree on! 8)

URallIgnorant wrote: Why, you don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong, and that's my whole point.
Why the hell should I say that I'm wrong, when you haven't provided any evidence to dispute what I'm saying? I have the evidence to back up my case. You don't. You are the one who needs to admit being wrong.

URallIgnorant wrote: I could sit here and waste my time reaserching and finding references and writing critiques on your points...but in the end it will be all for nought.
From your point of view, yes, because the evidence backs up what I'm saying. :wink:

Oh well, we both know I'm right, and you haven't been able to dispute what I'm saying, so I would say that this debate is pretty much over. :owned: