More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
maineman
Banned
look asshol;e....you wanna insult me with shit like this:
"If Germany had won WWII, would you be preaching to us about how it's not so bad having to salute the Fuhrer each day, and hey... we don't have the troubles in the ME because we fixed that Jew problem! How could life possibly be any better than this? Would that be your take?"
...then you should quit yer bitchin'
my guess is Dixie, that if Vietnam had gone on for another decade and you would have been drafted, you might have not been so pumped up to go fight in a war that, by that time, would have claimed well over 100K casualties and would clearly not be supporting any part of American foreign policy other than misplaced pride. YOu cannot tell me what victory would have changed...you cannot explain why, if our foreign policy behind Vietnam WAS legitimate, we do NOT have communists swarming all over the pacific rim...
Again. our military is the muscular arm of American foreign policy. For us to keep throwing young men into a meat grinder in a war that no longer fulfilled any foreign policy objective is sheer folly....but given your slavish support for Dubya's similar misadventures in Iraq, I certainly am not surprised by your willingness to sacrifice our troops for idiocy
Getting out of Vietnam cost us NOTHING except perecived pride...and I know that I have NEVER lost my pride in America and was proud that we were able to not act like the light brigade and keep charging just because that is what we started doing......
"If Germany had won WWII, would you be preaching to us about how it's not so bad having to salute the Fuhrer each day, and hey... we don't have the troubles in the ME because we fixed that Jew problem! How could life possibly be any better than this? Would that be your take?"
...then you should quit yer bitchin'
my guess is Dixie, that if Vietnam had gone on for another decade and you would have been drafted, you might have not been so pumped up to go fight in a war that, by that time, would have claimed well over 100K casualties and would clearly not be supporting any part of American foreign policy other than misplaced pride. YOu cannot tell me what victory would have changed...you cannot explain why, if our foreign policy behind Vietnam WAS legitimate, we do NOT have communists swarming all over the pacific rim...
Again. our military is the muscular arm of American foreign policy. For us to keep throwing young men into a meat grinder in a war that no longer fulfilled any foreign policy objective is sheer folly....but given your slavish support for Dubya's similar misadventures in Iraq, I certainly am not surprised by your willingness to sacrifice our troops for idiocy
Getting out of Vietnam cost us NOTHING except perecived pride...and I know that I have NEVER lost my pride in America and was proud that we were able to not act like the light brigade and keep charging just because that is what we started doing......
maineman
Banned
I am saying that the strategic premise for the vietnam war was the domino theory. that theory has been PROVEN to be inaccurate. WHy would we keep fighting a war in support of a theory that did not make sense.
Westmoreland lied about enemy body counts and he lied about the progress of the conflict. He painted a rosy picture at LBJ's behest and I hope BOTH of them are burning in hell.
And tell,me.... what year did you graduate from one of our service academies? did I miss that in your resume? and where, pray tell, did you find the fact that I had gone to annapolis? are you a troll?
Battleborne
Terminator
Nope...
not a academy Graduate...went to OCS...had friends who went to West Point they advised me of their training after the VN conflict...and for Westmoreland lieing you are so wrong...fact he reported stats gathered by CIA operatives and Black ops military..it is not lieing reporting what your subordinates report..he was a great General and had us on a winning streak...the news media destroyed him much like they did Mac Arthur...and please quit with the troll comments...do you even no what a internet troll is? Ask Damo if I am a troll....I have thousands of posts and thread starters on three boards....!
not a academy Graduate...went to OCS...had friends who went to West Point they advised me of their training after the VN conflict...and for Westmoreland lieing you are so wrong...fact he reported stats gathered by CIA operatives and Black ops military..it is not lieing reporting what your subordinates report..he was a great General and had us on a winning streak...the news media destroyed him much like they did Mac Arthur...and please quit with the troll comments...do you even no what a internet troll is? Ask Damo if I am a troll....I have thousands of posts and thread starters on three boards....!
maineman
Banned
I graduated from Annapolis during the VN conflict. I find it interesting that you would know about my graduation from there since you have not been on this board but for a few days and I had not mentioned it.... and why you would presume to know my class standing is a bit weird..... or was that your form of insult?
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Well, it's fairly clear that you don't know what an "internet troll" (sic) is. I've been trolling since before you even knew what a modem is. Actually, I'm not even sure you know what a modem is now . . . but I digress.
I was trollin' at 800 baud, Bubbi, and trust me, I know: you're a troll. Takes one to know one. You're not what the noobs call a "troll" these days, but you bait flames, beyond question. Where do you think that the term comes from?
Trollin' trollin' trollin'!
Keep them tempers broillin'!
This is gibberish. Its barely even functional english.
OCS candidates are supposed to have college degrees. At least that was the requirement when my Bro' was in OCS
Battleborne
Terminator
OMG...it's...
Al Gore...ya invented trollin too? and a troll is someone who baits and runs...fails to debate...and a Modem...humm is that like a Quad or moto cross bike...just funnin' cause you are being so silly!
Al Gore...ya invented trollin too? and a troll is someone who baits and runs...fails to debate...and a Modem...humm is that like a Quad or moto cross bike...just funnin' cause you are being so silly!
Battleborne
Terminator
Lol...
this from the broken record poster...same thing over and over and over again...nothing to add but over and over and over again...so again "FUCK YOU"
this from the broken record poster...same thing over and over and over again...nothing to add but over and over and over again...so again "FUCK YOU"
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Wrong, schlongbreath! Classically, a "troll" is someone who deliberately provokes emotional excess from the opposition, lobbing grenades with gleeful abandon. On can "run" from debate in many ways. One of them is to simply reiterate one's trollish assertions over and over, varying the wording only slightly, whilst refusing to address the points of one's opponents in any substantive way.
In other words, you're a troll.
Last edited:
Battleborne
Terminator
Nice try Bison Breath....
however you just described Cypress...not me...I add to the debate and address all questions asked...not my fault the opposition fails to understand the response...you also seem to fall into this category...so you are correct you are a TROLL! Night all...snack and TV is a callin! Oh and don't get too snippy Mr.Software architect! Your background is a little shakey too!
Wrong, schlongbreath! Classically, a "troll" is someone who deliberately provokes emotional excess from the opposition, lobbing grenades with gleeful abandon. On can "run" from debate in many ways. One of them is to simply reiterate one's trollish assertions over and over, varying the wording only slightly, whilst refusing to address the points of one's opponents in any substantive way.
In other words, you're a troll.
however you just described Cypress...not me...I add to the debate and address all questions asked...not my fault the opposition fails to understand the response...you also seem to fall into this category...so you are correct you are a TROLL! Night all...snack and TV is a callin! Oh and don't get too snippy Mr.Software architect! Your background is a little shakey too!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wrong, schlongbreath! Classically, a "troll" is someone who deliberately provokes emotional excess from the opposition, lobbing grenades with gleeful abandon. On can "run" from debate in many ways. One of them is to simply reiterate one's trollish assertions over and over, varying the wording only slightly, whilst refusing to address the points of one's opponents in any substantive way.
In other words, you're a troll.
Damn if that doesn't sound just like Prissy and Darla!
I disagree with your definition of "troll". Named for the obnoxious and disgusting character, know to live beneath the bridge, a troll is someone who utilizes a professional fishing technique (trolling) to catch attention, based on nothing more than the need to agitate or provoke response. Skinhead and Pimptaddy were trolls created by Brent, Prissy and Darla are not trolls, they are just annoying pinheads.
Now, SR and the FullofShit Politics Secret Circus might have a differing definition, depending on who is liked or disliked at any given time. I happen to think it is a form of Scarlet Letter censorship that should be appalled, but what do I know?
Gaffer
Sanctimonious Prick
I was offered numerous times in AIT to go to OCS. All it took at that time was to past the initial test they gave you when you first went in. Me and about 10 other guys in my platoon were called out every weekend to a special fromation so some offier could give us a sales speech about why we should go to OCS. The one catch, I was in for two years. If I went to OCS I had to re-enlist for three years. Which I did not want to do.
The idea that all officers had to have degrees began in 1972-73. The misconception (still going on today) that book learning makes a leader. I did know a number of officers that had been enlisted and then went on to OCS like BB did. By the 70's those officers were given the choice of get a degree or get out.
Those that want to talk Vietnam, feel free to debate, but you better read up on it first before throwing out denials and half truths. Most everything has been declassified now and can be researched easily. BB gave you a link to general giaps book. Its an eye opener.
Nixon settled for a peace with honor when he could have won outright.. The war was effectively over until 1975 when the north invaded. Congress (democrat controlled) completely cut off all funding for Vietnam. The south lost because they had nothing to fight with. North vietnam and the dems successfully defeated south vietnam. Cambodia and Loas went next, the dominoe threat was real. It got slowed by the cambodian debacle.
maineman
Banned
and Gaffer....what would be different today if we had been "victorious" besides a lot more names on the black wall?
what was the foreign policy objective that we were asking our military to accomplish in Vietnam?
And if we weren't successful in accomplishing that foreign policy objective, because we withdrew before complete "victory", why didn't the communists swarm all over the pacific rim knocking down democracieis like dominoes? Why, if being "victorious" in Vietnam was so critical to our national security, why aren't there communists knocking on the Golden Gate today because we weren't "victorious"?
what was the foreign policy objective that we were asking our military to accomplish in Vietnam?
And if we weren't successful in accomplishing that foreign policy objective, because we withdrew before complete "victory", why didn't the communists swarm all over the pacific rim knocking down democracieis like dominoes? Why, if being "victorious" in Vietnam was so critical to our national security, why aren't there communists knocking on the Golden Gate today because we weren't "victorious"?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Maine, we've already gone through this, and you wanted to laugh at the "what if's". You are asking a legitimate question, and when you are answered matter of factly, you just laugh it off. The simple answer is, we don't know what might have resulted from a Vietnam victory, it didn't happen. Anything we say at this point, is speculative, and this is why you can laugh at it. But it's fairly universally understood, the results of winning a war is always far better than the results of losing one.
You want to point to the lack of swarming Communists in the Pacific rim, and discount the speeches of Eisenhower, but have you even considered, how much resources and money were poured into a nuclear arms race, which may not have occurred, if Communism had been defeated in Vietnam? Now, you can argue that this is ridiculous to even consider, but this is because we didn't win in Vietnam, and we have no way of knowing what a victory would have meant. However, it is possible that Vietnam could have broken the back of Communism, and we wouldn't have had a Cold War.
Nations like North Korea, would not have been emboldened, and perhaps we wouldn't be having to deal today, with a nuclear Korean peninsula? Again, we simply don't know what Vietnam victory may have meant. Gaffer already mentioned Laos and Cambodia, would they have ended up as they did? Probably not, but again, we don't know what the result of victory in Vietnam, may have meant. You keep demanding to know what might have happened if something else had occurred, and when you are given valid examples, you laugh at them, because they didn't happen. It's really a safe argument, because we don't know what may have happened, we must speculate.
This is why we have to apply the logic I mentioned in the first paragraph. Benefits of war that is won, are always greater than benefits of war that is lost. That is just common sense, and we don't have to speculate on this, we know it to be the case.
However, it is possible that Vietnam could have broken the back of Communism, and we wouldn't have had a Cold War.
Dude the cold war started in 1945/46, and ended for all intents and purposes a little more than a decade after south vietnam fell, when Gorbachev was picked as the USSR's leaer.
Most knowledgable experts say the vietnam war extended the cold war. The vietnam conflict sapped american strength, credibility, and economic power. It was a one-sided defeat for america. The soviets were basically bystanders, who weren't in a position to "lose" anything. The vietnamese never were soviet puppets, and the cambodian khmer-rouge were ferociously anti-soviet. All vietnam was, at its core, was a civil war. Us "winning or losing" there, had little effect on the soviets. The vietnamese never were, and never became, their puppet state. The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us. And us, staying another few years in vietnam to "win", wouldn't have made any appreciable difference to the Soviet geopolitical position on the world stage.
Dude the cold war started in 1945/46, and ended for all intents and purposes a little more than a decade after south vietnam fell, when Gorbachev was picked as the USSR's leaer.
Most knowledgable experts say the vietnam war extended the cold war. The vietnam conflict sapped american strength, credibility, and economic power. It was a one-sided defeat for america. The soviets were basically bystanders, who weren't in a position to "lose" anything. The vietnamese never were soviet puppets, and the cambodian khmer-rouge were ferociously anti-soviet. All vietnam was, at its core, was a civil war. Us "winning or losing" there, had little effect on the soviets. The vietnamese never were, and never became, their puppet state. The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us. And us, staying another few years in vietnam to "win", wouldn't have made any appreciable difference to the Soviet geopolitical position on the world stage.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, a pinhead fails to acknowledge things that may have happened, because of the fact they didn't happen, because we didn't win. I can't argue this point, there is no way to explain to you, how it would have been better to win in Vietnam, because there is nothing to show you, because we didn't win. Anything I can present, is speculative, based on IF we had won, which didn't happen, so the speculative analysis is not demonstrable. In other words, you are asking that I prove a negative.
Aside from this, Prissy is incapable of reading anything posted by a Conservative, without trying to find some twist or angle he can exploit. I've never seen someone so obsessed with proving people wrong, rather than trying to understand them. When I say, "perhaps we wouldn't have had the Cold War" I am referring to the era of the 70's and 80's, when the nuclear arms race was in its prime, and untold megatons of nuclear weapons were produced by the Soviets and US. Perhaps a victory over Communism in Vietnam would have ushered in a new era of cooperation with the Soviets? This is all I am saying, and it's not unreasonable or uneducated, as far as 'speculation' goes. And regardless of what you say, the Soviets, who armed the Red Chinese, also armed and supported the NVA.
The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us.
Yes! Because we DIDN'T FUCKING WIN! You moron!
This has BEEN the point! Thanks for finally GETTING it!
Aside from this, Prissy is incapable of reading anything posted by a Conservative, without trying to find some twist or angle he can exploit. I've never seen someone so obsessed with proving people wrong, rather than trying to understand them. When I say, "perhaps we wouldn't have had the Cold War" I am referring to the era of the 70's and 80's, when the nuclear arms race was in its prime, and untold megatons of nuclear weapons were produced by the Soviets and US. Perhaps a victory over Communism in Vietnam would have ushered in a new era of cooperation with the Soviets? This is all I am saying, and it's not unreasonable or uneducated, as far as 'speculation' goes. And regardless of what you say, the Soviets, who armed the Red Chinese, also armed and supported the NVA.
The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us.
Yes! Because we DIDN'T FUCKING WIN! You moron!
This has BEEN the point! Thanks for finally GETTING it!
maineman
Banned
And you are similarly denigrating me because I do not buy into your rosy scenario about all the wonderful things that might have happened if we had stayed for some unknown period of time losing an unknown number of additional young men and further decimated our military warfighting capability.
It is just as plausible for ME to say that if we had gotten out of Vietnam two or four years earlier, one of the soldiers who died in that time period would have come home and found the cure for cancer and AIDS.
And I can tell you, when I served with the UN in Lebanon, I served very closely with military officers from over 20 other countries... and to a man, they all expressed their belief that getting OUT of Vietnam was a very wise move for America. I think the only people who felt we lost prestige, clout, and credibility were conservatives in America. The rest of the world certainly did not think any LESS of us for getting out of what they viewed as a internal conflict in the southeast asian penninsula. All of my old UN buddies are emailing me these days and they ALL feel that the war in Iraq is INDEED costing us prestige, credibility and clout.
maineman
Banned
but then, the combined wisdom regarding the situation in the middle east that is contained in the officers from all over the world that served with me in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Israel is significantly greater than the combined expertise about that area in the Bush administration...
or in the Bush cheerleaders on here.
or in the Bush cheerleaders on here.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The rest of the world certainly did not think any LESS of us for getting out of what they viewed as a internal conflict in the southeast asian penninsula.
Yes, they did. Even the retarded recognize this... The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us.-- Prissy
because I do not buy into your rosy scenario
I didn't give a rosy scenario, just a realistic evaluation of what might have happened. As I said before, and you can't refute, winning wars is always more beneficial than losing them.
Yes, they did. Even the retarded recognize this... The only one's who lost prestige, clout, and credibility were us.-- Prissy
because I do not buy into your rosy scenario
I didn't give a rosy scenario, just a realistic evaluation of what might have happened. As I said before, and you can't refute, winning wars is always more beneficial than losing them.