Originally posted by finnegan I must remark on this crazy notion about what war is about: the best army being the one causing most mayhem. I think we all concede the US can cause most mayhem. Cambodia is testament to its ability to bomb a nation (with which it was presumably not at war either) into the stone age and the outcome of that police action was the Khmer horrors, only terminat its own. You see we all need your expensive toys - just leave the direction to others please.
It is not a crazy notion. When "war" is declared by congress there is differnt rules of engagement . "War" was not declared in Vietnam. I doubt you have any idea what I am talking about.
And yes the U.S. has the best military in the world. It is not the biggest as you claim it is though.
Originally posted by utherpendragon It is not a crazy notion. When "war" is declared by congress there is differnt rules of engagement . "War" was not declared in Vietnam. I doubt you have any idea what I am talking about.
And yes the U.S. has the best military in the world. It is not the biggest as you claim it is though.
It is a crazy notion.
Firstly, it suits the President of the US to have a legalistic excuse for using military force against external targets without congressional approval. In fact as others noted, it rarely if ever suits a President to seek approval. This excuse only works for internal US political purposes. Internationally it is utterly empty and meaningless. I am afraid the Vietnam War was a war and a war is what it was. That is why we call it The Vietnam War.
Secondly, Clausewitz I think said that war is diplomacy by other means. War serves a political / diplomatic objective and has no other justification. A great army is one that achieves its objectives and it is not a great quality to cause mayhem in the process.
There was a fine English king after William the Conqueror (I can't be looking up now but could if pushed) who summoned an army to invade Normandy. Every town and village had to send young men equipped with sufficient materials and cash to get through the campaign. When his soldiers assembled, their sergeants went around and collected all the money in their purses and sent them home. He then used the money to bribe his way into the French walled towns. That is the correct use of military resources.
Originally posted by DrKF So how come you keep losing..?
What nation are you from? Oh I am sorry,you dont have one of your own,do ya? You got a flag though. Now just resurrect William Wallace and you might have a fighting chance.
Originally posted by finnegan I must remark on this crazy notion about what war is about: the best army being the one causing most mayhem. I think we all concede the US can cause most mayhem. Cambodia is testament to its ability to bomb a nation (with which it was presumably not at war either) into the stone age and the outcome of that police action was the Khmer horrors, only terminat ...[text shortened]... its own. You see we all need your expensive toys - just leave the direction to others please.
Originally posted by utherpendragon What nation are you from? Oh I am sorry,you dont have one of you own,do ya? You got a flag though. Now just resurrect William Wallace and you might have a fighting chance.
Originally posted by finnegan Not really able to deal with the debate are you dear?
So, tell me about your personal experiences in The Nam, Patty me boy. Tell me the truths you know. The truths your professors pissed in your ears. Drink another case of Tiger Piss, it's on me.
Originally posted by smw6869 So, tell me about your personal experiences in The Nam, Patty me boy. Tell me the truths you know. The truths your professors pissed in your ears. Drink another case of Tiger Piss, it's on me.
GRANNY.
I prefer Jameson's thanks.
If you have experience of Vietnam that is important to you and I respect that. As you so cutely observe I am Irish not American and the people of Vietnam are not really any more foreign to me than you are so I can only say to you that the experience of being in combat on your side - however dreadful - was not a lot worse than the experience of being in combat on the other side. Look at the fate of Iraqi conscripts in the Gulf wars...
No I was not in Vietnam nor any other combat thanks be to goodness. That certainly means I can never understand what it is like. It does not prevent my having access to very many accounts, nor being able to consider the arguments for and against the issues. Maybe you would like to tell me how your experience affects your responses to this debate (apart from making you uncontrollably angry which, to be fair, might be understandable)?
Originally posted by finnegan It is a crazy notion.
Firstly, it suits the President of the US to have a legalistic excuse for using military force against external targets without congressional approval. In fact as others noted, it rarely if ever suits a President to seek approval. This excuse only works for internal US political purposes. Internationally it is utterly empty and m ...[text shortened]... y to bribe his way into the French walled towns. That is the correct use of military resources.
"There was a fine English king after William the Conqueror (I can't be looking up now but could if pushed) who summoned an army to invade Normandy. Every town and village had to send young men equipped with sufficient materials and cash to get through the campaign. When his soldiers assembled, their sergeants went around and collected all the money in their purses and sent them home. He then used the money to bribe his way into the French walled towns. That is the correct use of military resources."
Dear God, Jesus, Joseph and Mary. You're either a cuckoo bird, a drunk or just plain insane. Why the hell didn't you tell this to Bush before he entered Iraq ? Less people would have died. It's all your fault. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT !
Vietnam - A Television History
02 Dec '09 22:041 edit
Back to Top