Saddam's lawyer

[Fleet 500]

But hey, maybe North Korea hates us because a bunch of other presidents were too paranoid, and untrusting around them. No, I don't know what foreign policy towards N.Korea has been like ever since the Korean war, or even that much about the situation.

No, N. Korea (the "leader," Kim Jong Il, of N. Korea, that is) hates us because he is a nutcase dictator who has killed many thousands of his own people.

Sure, it backfired, but how the hell can you get angry at Clinton. Unless you believe he has the power to see into the future.....? I'd say giving alot of the first generations of the Taliban and Al Queda their military training, so as to fight the Russians better, was far worse. But once again, how could they have known? Seriously, if you don't trust them they hate you, if you DO trust them, at least you are giving progress and friendly relations a chance.

EDIT: 20/20 Hindsight - don't abuse it

Oh, come on now... Reagan, the elder Bush, or G.W. Bush would never had made that stupid agreement with N. Korea. It's a lot different than comparing with Taliban and al Qaeda because they weren't supplied with nuclear material.

[Fleet 500]

you might realise that when Clinton was president this forum did not exist. Otherwise he could have been a good topic.

Yes, he would have been a good topic. At one point, there was an average of one scandal almost every week breaking.

I hope you also realise that you are the only one who, whenever something about the current US government is being said, is referring to previous US governments, as if mistakes by previous governments gives the current one the right to make them too.

But there is a very good reason for that. A lot of today's problems exist because of the previous U.S. government, or last administration to be more accurate.

[CdocZ]

No, N. Korea (the "leader," Kim Jong Il, of N. Korea, that is) hates us because he is a nutcase dictator who has killed many thousands of his own people.

Point made, realized, and accepted, my bad.

Oh, come on now... Reagan, the elder Bush, or G.W. Bush would never had made that stupid agreement with N. Korea. It's a lot different than comparing with Taliban and al Qaeda because they weren't supplied with nuclear material.

True. But neither is exactly good. I mean, you don't want a terrorist with a crude but working nuke, but I'd believe it's not exactly fun having a few thousand anti-American terrorists who were trained by none other than our own, using our own tactics and strategies to kill our troops. Both suck /-\ss.

But there is a very good reason for that. A lot of today's problems exist because of the previous U.S. government, or last administration to be more accurate.

Damn the British monarchies of old!

[Pando]

Back to politics I see. Not surprised this has gotten a bit off topic.

What comes to the video, I am quite skeptic on how much truth there is in it. "Saddam was praying, when he got caught... etc." In my opinion it is just one mans attempt to glorify Saddam's image and make him live on as a martyr and I have no doubt in my mind that the Saddam's followers are buying every word of it without double-checking the statements or any further evidence.

The U.S. left Vietnam due to political reasons, not because they got their "arse & arsenal chased right out of town." The U.S. could have leveled Vietnam very easily. Don't try to claim that N. Vietnam had a superior military and more firepower!

Not true. The US pretty much tried that in Vietnam and across the border in Cambodia as well:

The massive B-52 strikes (Operation Menu) deluged Cambodia for 14 months and delivered approximately 2,756,941 tons of bombs, more than the total tonnage that the Allies dropped "during all of World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki." According to historians Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen, "Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history."

Keeping in mind we're talking about limited areas in quite a small country, slightly smaller than Oklahoma (I looked that up for you Fleet), I'd say that qualifies as an attempt to "level 'em". That worked out well for the Cambodians didn't it?

N. Vietnam / Vietcong did not have superior firepower, but what they did have is superior tactics and far superior use of the conditions and terrain. The invading forces always have the disadvantage of being on foreign soil, especially democratic countries. The Vietcong took advantage of that and pretty much wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. This is relevant, because its the same tactics the Taliban are using in Afghanistan, the resistance in Iraq and now the extremists in Somalia.

[CdocZ]

Well, fighting on foreign land is not as big an issue now. The problem about that, and technology in Vietnam, is 1) back then, our troops training was rather basic, and 2) it was more "just shoot - you have the firepower".

Nowadays, the American military has probably the second most intense military training for standard soldiers, in all kinds of climates and terrains. Also, the military is MUCH more focused on getting as much "bang for buck" as possible - our military is far more stealthy, and accurate, than ever. So, now instead of unloading an entire magazine of ammo or a whole bomb rack for a small number of enemies, its much more efficient, with much less collateral damage.

[Pando]

Well, fighting on foreign land is not as big an issue now. The problem about that, and technology in Vietnam, is 1) back then, our troops training was rather basic, and 2) it was more "just shoot - you have the firepower".

Nowadays, the American military has probably the second most intense military training for standard soldiers, in all kinds of climates and terrains. Also, the military is MUCH more focused on getting as much "bang for buck" as possible - our military is far more stealthy, and accurate, than ever. So, now instead of unloading an entire magazine of ammo or a whole bomb rack for a small number of enemies, its much more efficient, with much less collateral damage.

Yes, well my argument was based on the fact that the people fighting "at home" can still use that as an advantage. I'm not implying that the US army isn't trained to fight in various terrains, which I know they are. Now, what I was saying is that if you are on enemy soil it is still a disadvantage. Especially for democratic countries as the ancient "kill all men - rape all women" tactic is quite out of the question. That's why the first gulf war was so much less complicated for the US as they were invited to drive a foreign army out of an allied country.

Let's simplify: In which case the foreign army theoretically always have to choose between two choices, to fight or to retreat. In the modern world when a country invades another sovereign nation, for what ever reason, the defending army has a third choice to hide and wait. Most of the times time is on the defenders side, especially against a democratic country where dissent among the people grows proportionally with the length of the war.

[Fleet 500]

Not true. The US pretty much tried that in Vietnam and across the border in Cambodia as well:
Keeping in mind we're talking about limited areas in quite a small country, slightly smaller than Oklahoma (I looked that up for you Fleet), I'd say that qualifies as an attempt to "level 'em". That worked out well for the Cambodians didn't it?

The U.S. didn't use anywhere near the firepower she could have. In fact, the 1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said that he could have won that war in about 6 months by the method I mentioned- continous bombing resulting in leveling the war zone. Be careful what you read on wikipedia; anyone can contribute information on that site and it isn't verified. I have found several errors when looking up Cadillacs.

N. Vietnam / Vietcong did not have superior firepower, but what they did have is superior tactics and far superior use of the conditions and terrain.

Then how come the U.S. never lost a battle?

The invading forces always have the disadvantage of being on foreign soil, especially democratic countries. The Vietcong took advantage of that and pretty much wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. This is relevant, because its the same tactics the Taliban are using in Afghanistan, the resistance in Iraq and now the extremists in Somalia.

I agree with that, in general.

[Pando]

The U.S. didn't use anywhere near the firepower she could have. In fact, the 1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater said that he could have won that war in about 6 months by the method I mentioned- continous bombing resulting in leveling the war zone. Be careful what you read on wikipedia; anyone can contribute information on that site and it isn't verified. I have found several errors when looking up Cadillacs.

I am aware of wikipedia's reliability. But even if the number would be a few tons off, it still wouldn't change what I was trying to say.

In the first half of the 20th century, warfare changed quite a bit. Weapons became more and more powerful, eventually reaching the stage that you could no longer throw everything you got on even your worst enemy. At the time of the Vietnam war the USA and USSR both had enough firepower to "level" the entire world. Luckily, perhaps out of mutual fear for the other superpower, they didn't. Especially post WWII a democratic nation cannot level another nation, period. Even if the US foreign policy has been quite self destructive, that would be political suicide at home and abroad and a stain the nation forever.

Then how come the U.S. never lost a battle?

I haven't been looking, but I haven't found a neutral source claiming this to be true. I guess the same sources you've got this information from probably make the same claim of every other post WWII war the US has fought in? The victories always get the media attention at home. Fact still remains that both sides took heavy casualties and of the main objectives: make Vietnam a communist/democratic nation only one succeeded. I find it hard to believe this was achieved without "winning one battle" but I guess it depends on how you determine the word battle. I guess the successful waging of guerrilla warfare didn't qualify.

[Fleet 500]

In the first half of the 20th century, warfare changed quite a bit. Weapons became more and more powerful, eventually reaching the stage that you could no longer throw everything you got on even your worst enemy. At the time of the Vietnam war the USA and USSR both had enough firepower to "level" the entire world. Luckily, perhaps out of mutual fear for the other superpower, they didn't. Especially post WWII a democratic nation cannot level another nation, period. Even if the US foreign policy has been quite self destructive, that would be political suicide at home and abroad and a stain the nation forever.

You just answered your own question. Yes, the USA and USSR had enough firepower to level the entire world. And nowhere near all of the U.S.'s firepower was put to use in Vietnam. If it was, as Goldwater said, the war would have been over much sooner.

I haven't been looking, but I haven't found a neutral source claiming this to be true. I guess the same sources you've got this information from probably make the same claim of every other post WWII war the US has fought in? The victories always get the media attention at home. Fact still remains that both sides took heavy casualties and of the main objectives: make Vietnam a communist/democratic nation only one succeeded. I find it hard to believe this was achieved without "winning one battle" but I guess it depends on how you determine the word battle. I guess the successful waging of guerrilla warfare didn't qualify

I'll repeat... the U.S. won every battle in N. Vietnam. However, from what I've read, that would be every noteworthy battle. Meaning, I would guess, at least 20 or 25 troops.

[Matra et Alpine]

You just answered your own question. Yes, the USA and USSR had enough firepower to level the entire world. And nowhere near all of the U.S.'s firepower was put to use in Vietnam. If it was, as Goldwater said, the war would have been over much sooner.

The only thing held back was the nuke and that would never actually ahve been committed in reality as it as a M-A-D weapon. It wouldn't be launched to save political face !!
Rolling THunder, Linbacker etc etc committed most of the available resources.
NOTE "available" .... that doesn't mean "all" so be careful of misreading biased historical accounts. A force cannot have 100% utilisation of anything.

I'll repeat... the U.S. won every battle in N. Vietnam. However, from what I've read, that would be every noteworthy battle. Meaning, I would guess, at least 20 or 25 troops.

yeah "won" the "battle" by using propoganda of 'body counts' to select a winner and moving more resources into an area where defeat had occured, hence turning the defeat to a "victory". That the opponents generally retreated in typical guerilla tactics makes that a false conclusion. With a few exceptions - like Tet - where the VC just got it all wrong and didnt' respect the artillery ranged on them.
But patriotic thinking prevents truth

[Fleet 500]

A force cannot have 100% utilisation of anything.

True, that.

yeah "won" the "battle" by using propoganda of 'body counts' to select a winner and moving more resources into an area where defeat had occured, hence turning the defeat to a "victory". That the opponents generally retreated in typical guerilla tactics makes that a false conclusion. With a few exceptions - like Tet - where the VC just got it all wrong and didnt' respect the artillery ranged on them.
But patriotic thinking prevents truth

No, I mean won the battle, period. No "propoganda" needed.

[Matra et Alpine]

No, I mean won the battle, period. No "propoganda" needed.

Well with the US MI providing the reports on when a "Battle" ended then of course they all came out as "win".
Often there were losses of men, material and ground over a period of days/weeks and then the US woudl through large forces to turn it around.
Following on from von Clausewitz, a "battle" would be what was tactically PLANNED. Re-active efforts to commit forces is what makes many "battles" amount to a war
But i recognise the resurfacing of your need to believe that all US activities are "best-in-class". As you wish.

[Daz27]

I already know what terrorism is... the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons... violence committed or threatened to intimidate or coerce, as for military or political purposes.

Bugger me if thats not what the US Government has done since lil Bush got in... Call me stupid, but havent those idiots stuck their snouts in just about every single thing that has happened world wide since september 12 2001 and tried to pass it off as averting an act of terror on the US? I really, really think that they should be looking after the problems they have at home, ie health care and education and policing (domestically), you know, the basic shit a government does, and get that right, before they start worrying about other countries affairs.
I also think that lil Johnny Howard should shut the **** up too and stop running around, toilet paper in hand chasing after his bum chum G.W.Bush to wipe his arse when he gets himself into more of his self created shit...
End of rant.

[henk4]

But there is a very good reason for that. A lot of today's problems exist because of the previous U.S. government, or last administration to be more accurate.

Wasn't that the G.W. Bush 1 period?
I hope you are trying to say that because for once I would fully agree with you...

[Pando]

Yes, me too. And the snowball keeps on rolling, a lot of problems will exist in the future because of the self destructive policies of today's government.