It takes a Frenchman to see the greatness in the USA

[Thruster]

Typical, still skirting around the edges...half a dozen posts and you fail to say ANYthing of substance.

Did it ever occur to you you just might not understand what's being said? This post was started with a cut and paste transcript embellished with 20 words of quite non-substantive text added. I have yet to see a specific question I have not attempted to address. Apart from a few other posts that carried a provocative and in my mind pejorative tone, I think what has been written fairly states what I choose to say.
What I think you are really saying is "I don't understand what I'm reading but I think I'm not supposed to like it" with a request to elaborate.

None of us have that much time. Were I to comprehensively outline my opinions regarding the political, economic, and social malaise pervading modern America we would escape from the realm of B.B.S. postings into literature, none of us deserves that.

Furthermore , were I to detail the facets of our society that I feel we as a nation should be proud of, well, now we're talking about a major endeavor. I feel confident in saying nobody on this board has that kind of attention span, myself especially.

I am not an educator nor a novelist, I'm a carpenter. I find this kind of bantering to be very tedious. If you choose to review the thread you may find that the only substantive question directed to me was answered, as was the follow-up, sorry if not to your satisfaction. If you are interested in a specific issue, I'm glad to b.s. about this stuff when my schedule allows. If you are simply trying to find out whether I prefer "red" or "blue" shirts, that's a different horse entirely. I usually tend towards tie dye.

On an unrelated note....
At whet number of posts does one ascend from "member" to "senior member"?

I kinda get a chuckle when I see my I.D.

[moot]

You have to run on your hands backwards and counterclockwise around an autodafe bonfire of Locke and co.'s writings, naked, straddling Hillary, singing commie songs and flying a white flag.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Dago
You must wonder what it would be like to live in a country you could have a reason to be proud of.  Instead you live in a country known as a haven for military deserters.

Canadian leaders and citizens saw Vietnam for what it was.
A dismal failure of policy and execution. Too bad we didn't see the same thing. We still don't regarding Iraq. Maybe we'll learn someday but I'm not holding my breath.

[Dago]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Canadian leaders and citizens saw Vietnam for what it was.
 

Sorry if I have to disagree by saying "what a crock of crap".   You are speaking in rhetrospect, the Canadians didn't have the vision to either understand or predict that war.  I'm an sure they would like to pretend your statement is correct, but it is hindsight wisdom.

What sucked about Viet Nam was the way our civilian leadership controlled it, the restrictions they placed on the military, and their refusal to fight full out to win.  Politics is what you do before a war, not during a war.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Dago
Sorry if I have to disagree by saying "what a crock of crap".   You are speaking in rhetrospect, the Canadians didn't have the vision to either understand or predict that war.  I'm an sure they would like to pretend your statement is correct, but it is hindsight wisdom.

What sucked about Viet Nam was the way our civilian leadership controlled it, the restrictions they placed on the military, and their refusal to fight full out to win.  Politics is what you do before a war, not during a war.

And you miss the point of warfare and nationalism... expected from you.
No, the Canadian govt knew full well that our war in Vietnam was wrong, that's why they didn't participate in it. It's a war or more officially called a policing action, that never should have been.
It was wrong from before the official beginning, all the way to the end.
Fight full out? Kill off half the Vietnamese people to "save" them?

Maybe a bit of history is in order.
The Chinese, Japanese, Cambodians, French could not defeat the Vietnamese. When one nation decides to invade, then occupy a sovereign country, they better have the request and want of a majority of the population they are going to invade or face failure. We were instrumental in dividing Vietnam into a  north and south, and were against reunification talks as we knew we'd lose it on the political front.

Nothing turns an occupation on its ear when civilian casualties start piling up because of said invasion/occupation. Winning hearts and minds isn't from repairing the infrastructure one destroys, offering money and food to try to make up for those we killed. It's too late at that point.
We didn't learn our lessons from Vietnam, we probably won't learn it from Iraq either. If we go into Iran, we'll lose that one too.

Don't mistake this as somehow my wanting failure as I do not. I just see the reality of it.

Added:
The Canadians were right, we were wrong.
~50,000 of our troops and over 2 million Vietnamese paid the ultimate price for a war they didn't ask for.
They won, we lost.

Wishing it otherwise won't change history no matter how you try to spin it.

[Dago]

Originally posted by SaburoS

They won, we lost.

Wishing it otherwise won't change history no matter how you try to spin it.

What butt did you pull that out of?  Did I indicate in any way I was trying to say otherwise?

But I disagree with you, you take the line from many books written by apologists and liberals.

That war could have been won, and we had the ability to do it.  We just went about it all wrong.  Way wrong.

Study history a little more, understand how a war is won, the tactics that must be followed and the price that must be paid.

Expand your thinking a little outside the books you read about what we did, and think about what we didn't do.  Think about the way WW2 was prosecuted and maybe you can understand the differance.

1) You must always be on the offensive
2) You must go after the enemy at their center
3) You cannot allow the enemy to enjoy sanctuaries, like Laos and Cambodia
3) You must alwasy strive to deny the enemy a line of supply to the front line troops

None of these basics did we follow in Viet Nam.  We were doomed because of it.  Johnson worried too much about the political fallout.  

No, original thought isn't your strong suit SaburoS.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Dago
What butt did you pull that out of?  Did I indicate in any way I was trying to say otherwise?

But I disagree with you, you take the line from many books written by apologists and liberals.

Wow, what a rebuttal!(sarcasm)

Originally posted by Dago
That war could have been won, and we had the ability to do it.  We just went about it all wrong.  Way wrong.

Wrong! It was never declared a war by the US.
No kidding about going about it all wrong, not for the same reasons you think though. We should never have created that division of a north or south, nor should we have involved ourselves in that country at all.
It was never to be prosecuted as a total war as employed in WWI and WWII.

Originally posted by Dago
Study history a little more, understand how a war is won, the tactics that must be followed and the price that must be paid.

LOL, you ARE funny! You're the one missing the point of invasions, occupations, nationalism, and flat out what a war is.
Vietnam was never to be prosecuted as a total war.

Originally posted by Dago
Expand your thinking a little outside the books you read about what we did, and think about what we didn't do.  Think about the way WW2 was prosecuted and maybe you can understand the differance.

The fact that you're trying to justify Vietnam and comparing it to WWII shows your ignorance, Mr history major.

Originally posted by Dago
1) You must always be on the offensive
2) You must go after the enemy at their center
3) You cannot allow the enemy to enjoy sanctuaries, like Laos and Cambodia
3) You must alwasy strive to deny the enemy a line of supply to the front line troops

1) In a total war, agreed. Vietnam wasn't even a declared war.
2) How do you do that for an enemy that is everywhere? Remember that to the majority of the Vietnamese, there was no north and south, only one. When they were fighting the French, they were the Viet Minh nationalist forces.
3) We can't even police our own border, how in the world could we have prevented that? What then? Let's say we were successful and pushed them north? What about them going into China?
4) Easier said than done.

Originally posted by Dago
None of these basics did we follow in Viet Nam.  We were doomed because of it.  Johnson worried too much about the political fallout.

Pretty much started before him and ended after him. Why'd you leave out Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon? We're doomed because of people that try to compare WWII and Vietnam as one and the same as far as warfare. In Vietnam, we were doomed to lose that one as we started it. It was a corrupt war.

Originally posted by Dago
No, original thought isn't your strong suit SaburoS.

Not surprising coming from you. It's expected actually  

Over 2 million Vietnamese dead and 50,000 of our own. That mean anything to you?
What about all those wounded?

The thing about armchair politicians and generals, warfare is such an easy thing when they aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying.

[Dago]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Wow, what a rebuttal!(sarcasm)


Wrong! It was never declared a war by the US.
No kidding about going about it all wrong, not for the same reasons you think though. We should never have created that division of a north or south, nor should we have involved ourselves in that country at all.
It was never to be prosecuted as a total war as employed in WWI and WWII.



LOL, you ARE funny! You're the one missing the point of invasions, occupations, nationalism, and flat out what a war is.
Vietnam was never to be prosecuted as a total war.



The fact that you're trying to justify Vietnam and comparing it to WWII shows your ignorance, Mr history major.



1) In a total war, agreed. Vietnam wasn't even a declared war.
2) How do you do that for an enemy that is everywhere? Remember that to the majority of the Vietnamese, there was no north and south, only one. When they were fighting the French, they were the Viet Minh nationalist forces.
3) We can't even police our own border, how in the world could we have prevented that? What then? Let's say we were successful and pushed them north? What about them going into China?
4) Easier said than done.



Pretty much started before him and ended after him. Why'd you leave out Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon? We're doomed because of people that try to compare WWII and Vietnam as one and the same as far as warfare. In Vietnam, we were doomed to lose that one as we started it. It was a corrupt war.



Not surprising coming from you. It's expected actually  

Over 2 million Vietnamese dead and 50,000 of our own. That mean anything to you?
What about all those wounded?

The thing about armchair politicians and generals, warfare is such an easy thing when they aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying.

It is so ridiculous to justify all of your judgements with "it wasn't a declared war".  

Tell those who were maimed and the families of the dead it wasn't a war, they might disagree with you.  Violently.

Tell the Vietnamese who suffered bombs and naplam it wasn't a war.  Again, I think you would find yourself with an arguement.

A war is what it is, an armed and violent conflict by opposing forces.  Funny, virtually everyone, including historians, politicians, participants say it was a war.  You know better.  I suggest you start on your path to world enlightenment, make sure everyone else is straightened out, give them the benefit of your superior intellect.  again I must

I don't know if a discussion is possible with someone who uses such are ridiculous response.  Yeah, lets drag Eisenhower and Truman into it, not like they had a whole lot to do with the escalation into a war.  

One thing you must remember, Vietnam wasn't the first war a democrat started and a Republican had to finish.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Dago
It is so ridiculous to justify all of your judgements with "it wasn't a declared war".  

Tell those who were maimed and the families of the dead it wasn't a war, they might disagree with you.  Violently.

Tell the Vietnamese who suffered bombs and naplam it wasn't a war.  Again, I think you would find yourself with an arguement.

A war is what it is, an armed and violent conflict by opposing forces.  Funny, virtually everyone, including historians, politicians, participants say it was a war.  You know better.  I suggest you start on your path to world enlightenment, make sure everyone else is straightened out, give them the benefit of your superior intellect.  again I must

I don't know if a discussion is possible with someone who uses such are ridiculous response.  Yeah, lets drag Eisenhower and Truman into it, not like they had a whole lot to do with the escalation into a war.  

One thing you must remember, Vietnam wasn't the first war a democrat started and a Republican had to finish.

Now you're being obtuse.
Check your reading comprehension.

[bj229r]

It was never to be prosecuted as a total war as employed in WWI and WWII.

And that is why it turned out the way it did--if you have pilots flying over SAM battery construction sites, but AREN'T allowed to fire at them for fear of hurting civilian contractors, you are dooming yourself to failure. (One might also point out that the OTHER tactics WON WW1 and WW2). I think the US has finally cured  itself of the 'proportional response' plan of war...but you never know, Obama or Hillary could get elected, it it could start all over again. In short, either fight a WAR, or get the hell out

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by bj229r
And that is why it turned out the way it did--if you have pilots flying over SAM battery construction sites, but AREN'T allowed to fire at them for fear of hurting civilian contractors, you are dooming yourself to failure. (One might also point out that the OTHER tactics WON WW1 and WW2). I think the US has finally cured  itself of the 'proportional response' plan of war...but you never know, Obama or Hillary could get elected, it it could start all over again. In short, either fight a WAR, or get the hell out

 
Or better yet, don't start one in the first place.

[Dago]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Or better yet, don't start one in the first place.

Cute sound bite, were you wearing rosie glasses when you thought it up?  The world will always have war, as there will always be those who covet power, money, or wish to force the world to their religion.  The only variable will be the ability of some to defend themselves.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Dago
Cute sound bite, were you wearing rosie glasses when you thought it up?  The world will always have war, as there will always be those who covet power, money, or wish to force the world to their religion.  The only variable will be the ability of some to defend themselves.

You're not good at making points to shore up agenda.  Before you get your panties wadded and call me a commie, or sumpin' .... again, it seems due to crippled perspective and lack of skill and has nothing to do with me.

[Dago]

Originally posted by Arlo
You're not good at making points to shore up agenda.  Before you get your panties wadded and call me a commie, or sumpin' .... again, it seems due to crippled perspective and lack of skill and has nothing to do with me.

Why don't you make a relevant point, it would be a nice change of pace.

And I don't think you're a commie, that would give you too much credit, I think worse of you than that, I think you're a liberal.  

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Dago
Why don't you make a relevant point, it would be a nice change of pace.

And I don't think you're a commie, that would give you too much credit, I think worse of you than that, I think you're a liberal.  

Your presumptuous pizzy-fit aside, my relevant point was that you're not good at presenting a relevant point. If you're gonna justify war on the grounds of neccessity to defend against the power-hungry, the greedy and those who desire forcing their way on others and praise the defenders who stand in their way you might oughta pick a war to defend where we're not the invaders.

It's not your ideology (though I see some extremist/rhetoric-crutch flaws in that, as well). It's your faulty logic chip.