More US Government hypocrisy

[Fleet 500]

......On the US Side.

forgot that part.

Well, of course. You want to keep the casualties down on your side. Wouldn't you, if you were a General or Lt?

[Fleet 500]

What in God's Name does WW2 have to do with this; Next on Fleet's Patented List of Red Herrings........

Helping to win WW2 does not give the US free reign over the world.

Political battles I can agree with, but the Understocking of Troops in Unjustified wars is common place; hows about unarmoured-soldiers fighting in Iraq.

What troops need is our support, what governments need is a clip over the ear and a dose of reality.

Hey, relax! I was just pointing out that if the U.S. could defeat Japan, it could certainly defeat Vietnam, especially with 20 years more technology.

[Fleet 500]

Helping to win WW2 does not give the US free reign over the world.

The U.S. sent troops to Vietnam because it signed the SEATO agreement. Would you like to know what that is?

[nota]

SEATO shmeeto

America's involvement in Vietnam began with a lie, and descended from there

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

[Fleet 500]

The SEATO agreement (Southest Asia Treaty Organization), which the U.S. signed, said that the U.S. (and the other countries which also signed the treaty) would send troops to those country/countries which is threatened by communist takeover. It was signed on Sept. 8, 1954.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viet2.htm

[2ndclasscitizen]

before this gets any more out of hand, arguing about vietnam, i will solve it right now.

Blame the French. They're 'colonised' Vietnam. Bloody French.

[Fleet 500]

before this gets any more out of hand, arguing about vietnam, i will solve it right now.

Blame the French. They're 'colonised' Vietnam. Bloody French.

Okay, we'll blame the French.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I agree; another case of the US government having to cover the Frenchie's Asses.

20 Years More Technology did not lead to a victory, it lead to a Strategic withdrawal of troops, as the US puts it; or in plain language, a loss.

SEATO didn't seem to matter once the US pulled out of Vietnam, you guys certainly didn't help Cambodia during it's horrific Khmer Rouge Phase, but wait, they were communist!

Fancy that, another Unjust war based upon lies, with an ideal that was meant to be for the common good, but ended up as a shitefight? Never.

[Coventrysucks]

The U.S. didn't lose that fight. The U.S. won every battle in Vietnam. The troops were pulled out due to politics.

What relevance does this have to the USA's elected government, which tells the world it must have democracy, and has contorversially invaded countries to install democratic governments, now saying that the Palestines have the "wrong sort" of democracy?

What are they intending - to force the Palestinians to keep having elections till they come up with a Pro-Jewish, Pro-American government before they give back aid to the people?

Democracy will not spread to the other Arab states whilst the USA gives the impression that anyone who doesn't elect a pro-US government will be punished.

Democracy in these countries would probably go a long way to curbing terrorism, (the democratic govts. of Afghanistan and Iraq are supposed to be doing this) which the USA supposedly wants to stop, so why they would want to disuade these people from having democracy is laughable.

It seems that the USA will only accept peace in the Middle East if Israel is the beneficiary, rather than the Palestinians.

Stop turning other people's threads into your own personal battle grounds - if you want a thread on Vietnam - start one yourself!

[Guest]

Depending on where you go, China and the States are the 3rd and 4th largest countries. As Cmcpokey said, the US has more shoreline and China would have to weave their boats through Japanese, Taiwanese and northern southeastern asia. A large portion of the military is made of obsolete soviet equipment. I don't know about armies or the navy but I do know that trying to gain air superiority against the US is pretty much impossible, our F-22 raptors are untouchable. That in itself is a huge disadvantage. Besides, everyone knows, well anyone not involved with the Bush administration, that you cannot defeat an enemy in their homeland easily, quickly, or completely. We found that out in Veitnam and we are finding out again in Iraq.

no, F-22 raptors are not untouchable, you said the same thing in Vietnam and you got blown to peices by inexpensive rockets, smugness is a recipe for defeat

The U.S. didn't lose that fight. The U.S. won every battle in Vietnam. The troops were pulled out due to politics.

yes, the politics of them Being shot. And napalming children.

I remember that some troops were sent there with no bullets for their guns (they had to wait for orders to fire).

and then when they recieved those orders they had no bullets to fire. Americas master plan eh?

More than ample military decreases the casualties.

for the Americans, large bombs mean less controlled damage, meaning, more people unintentionally die.

[Matra et Alpine]

The U.S. didn't lose that fight. The U.S. won every battle in Vietnam. The troops were pulled out due to politics.

WHAT ?

oh forget it, you just spout nonsense blind patriotic drivel. YOU know that's not the truth.

WE know it's not the truth

Two of the 9/11 terrorists were making phone calls to al Qaeda members overseas. Maybe if the wire tapping (which isn't illegal, btw) and the Patriot Act were being done then as seriously as it is now, the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.

erm , please go read your own President.

The "tapping" IS illegal but he is claiming special powers allowing him to ignore the law and the constitution

The U.S. could have bombed that country into oblivion. In fact, Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said he could have won that war in about 6 months by launching a huge military attack. The U.S. certainly had the troops and equipment to do it.

Facts are facts... again, the U.S. won every battle in Vietnam.

Define "battle" ?
You're playgin a typcial word-game.
When is a police action a sckirmish or a smirmish an engagemetn or an engagement a battle or a battle a war ?
Playign with the semantics doesnt' make it a truth

BTW, go test your historical knowledge ... the US DID bomb part of the country "into oblivion" and 20 years later the underground tunnels and accomodation are STILL intact.

[Matra et Alpine]

You win a war with AMPLE military. I agree you can't win a war with LESS than ample military. But my question is why MORE than ample military when just AMPLE military could have won the waR?

You forget , More weapons means More profit for Haliburton, Radeon, Boeing etc etc

You have to think capitalist economics you filthy communist pig dog !"!

[Pando]

The U.S. didn't lose that fight. The U.S. won every battle in Vietnam. The troops were pulled out due to politics.

Lol! Fleet is back in the making-an-ass-of-himself business. You keep surprising me how serious your condition is.

[Guest]

Hey, relax! I was just pointing out that if the U.S. could defeat Japan, it could certainly defeat Vietnam, especially with 20 years more technology.

yes, by using a bomb which effects are still being felt today

[Matra et Alpine]

Just listened to an interview with a Repulican on the News about oil and his response was that he said ( sorry didnt' get his name ) that they would be putting forward for billions of dollars investment in developing refining fuel from shale oils. Seems like only one day after GWB says they have to stop their love affair that the oil industry has managed to convince massive investments to keep them highly profitable -- cynical --- moi ???? no