What aids and abets the enemy more?

[EatSpam]

x

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, at least your response has nothing at all to do with what my point is. I'm saying that, according to you, the Germans could support their troops but not the war. Yet, again according to you, it's impossible for us to do the same.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

example

I also like that picture where the mulleted guy is holding a sign that says "Get a Brain, Morans!"

LOL. The picture where the guy is holding the sign saying "Get a Brain, Morans!" is a picture of an anti-war protester.

Looked like a Bush supporter to me. Mulleted white guys in wife beater are 60% of Bush's base.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

example

I also like that picture where the mulleted guy is holding a sign that says "Get a Brain, Morans!"

LOL. The picture where the guy is holding the sign saying "Get a Brain, Morans!" is a picture of an anti-war protester.

Looked like a Bush supporter to me. Mulleted white guys in wife beater are 60% of Bush's base.

Keep holding on to trite and outdated stereotypes if it makes you feel superior and elite. It seems you have some desperate need to feel superior to others.

ime, it's a sign of people who are insecure and generally small-minded.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

example

I also like that picture where the mulleted guy is holding a sign that says "Get a Brain, Morans!"

Even in your photo, the tub a lards are outnumbered by the normal.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

example

I also like that picture where the mulleted guy is holding a sign that says "Get a Brain, Morans!"

LOL. The picture where the guy is holding the sign saying "Get a Brain, Morans!" is a picture of an anti-war protester.

Looked like a Bush supporter to me. Mulleted white guys in wife beater are 60% of Bush's base.

Keep holding on to trite and outdated stereotypes if it makes you feel superior and elite. It seems you have some desperate need to feel superior to others.

ime, it's a sign of people who are insecure and generally small-minded.

I agree, I've always felt those silly stereotypes about any particular group were the sign of someone with a tiny...brain

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

The liberals were against rebuilding Germany?

Apparently. Google on some of the old New York Times articles concerning the occupation in Germany. All you need do is replace Germany with Iraq and Truman with Bush and you'd swear you were reading a NY Times article from 2005.

Interesting...one of the things I found was some schlock from Rush making the same comparison (coincidence?). In any case, I don't know how much of a comparison between Germany 60 years ago and Iraq today. There are many obvious differences, and just because Germany turned out alright doesn't invalidade today's concerns.

Google Japan then. Always the same.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
I seem to recall TLC saying that it was possible for the Germans to support their troops but not the war during WWII

And we beat down the Germans and it only took us 6 years or so to rebuild and get their country running. All the while, the liberals pooh-pohed it practically every step of the way, claiming it was a disaster, a quagmire, and that the Germans could not possibly handle democracy.

Sound familiar?

Isn't it odd how history repeats itself?

The liberals were against rebuilding Germany?

Apparently. Google on some of the old New York Times articles concerning the occupation in Germany. All you need do is replace Germany with Iraq and Truman with Bush and you'd swear you were reading a NY Times article from 2005.

Interesting...one of the things I found was some schlock from Rush making the same comparison (coincidence?). In any case, I don't know how much of a comparison between Germany 60 years ago and Iraq today. There are many obvious differences, and just because Germany turned out alright doesn't invalidade today's concerns.

Google Japan then. Always the same.

It's not always the same though, that's my point. You can't compare conflicts that happen a few years apart with the same people (look at WWII vs WWI) much less conflicts 60 years apart with far different combatants. History is littered with defeats of countries too busy fighting the last war, and there is a good reason for that.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

Oh not this sh!t again. I'd be willing to bet there is very little difference in body type/physical fitness between the right and the left.

You're probably right, but it is fun to get a rise out of them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Neither. Bush's "Bring It On" comment was meant to rally his beer-bellied base. The anti-war protestors end up preaching to the choir. The fighters in the Iraq don't care.

You got a link to the beer bellied base A-hole? Once again a lib being a diplomat.

6"6" and 230 lbs! Pretty typical for most of the Republicans I know.

Oh not this sh!t again. I'd be willing to bet there is very little difference in body type/physical fitness between the right and the left.

You're probably right, but it is fun to get a rise out of them.

Yeah, I suppose

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: calbear2000
How does one express an anti-war stance without "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Or should they all shut up until the war is over?

They can support the troops AND the effort to rebuild Iraq. The second part (support the effort to rebuild Iraq) is where the anti-war protesters fall way short and they seem to be doing everything in their power, at least in the media and in forums like this one, to help ensure a lack of success in Iraq. All their whining does is make it that much more difficult for the troops, lowers their morale, and means we'll end up staying longer which ultimately does NOT support the troops. Public opinion is being used to sway people, both here and abroad, and it's having a definite adverse effect on the rebuilding effort in Iraq

They can still be against the invasion and do what I've described above. They don't, however, and that's why my eyes roll when I hear them say "We support the troops, we just don't support the war." Bullsh!t.

for your day. Hope you enjoy it.

I support our troops coming home NOW, healthy, uninjured, alive and this bullsh!t war that you PNAC boys dreamed up can do whatever it wants. You guys lied....er...asked for it....I'm asking for it to end now. The US people are starting to do the same....and a few politicians are starting to listen. :beer: to the momentum.... for you.

 

[hardwareguru84]

Oh please, I heard about this "aiding the enemy" nonsense on the radio. I love how anyone nowadays that disagrees with the government is labeled as "un-patriotic" to try to get them back in line. Questioning the government and such is one of the MOST patriotic things you can do. *sigh*. Aiding the enemy by protesting, yeah right. How about ole' Henry Ford supplying his anti-semitic bretheren in Germany with vehicles and all during WWII...then having the US government pay him for the manufacturing plants they destroyed. That's aiding and abetting.

 

[Train]

Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

 

[judasmachine]

I think politicians' statements make a bigger impact on the enemy than citizens half a planet away that have very little control over the strategies of war. I don't think either really aids and abets the enemy though. One is ineffectual and the other just pisses them off.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

Two thoughts. First, though I am not a Vietnam scholar, I suspect the accuracy of that claim depends heavily on defining your terms pretty narrowly (e.g., "win" and "significant battle".) Second, I'm not sure what that claim proves. I don't think Iraq won any significant battles with us either, but that's not how they're hurting us. It's through the increasingly effective use of guerilla tactics.

That would also seem to be an easy lesson from military history. You don't defeat far superior forces by attacking them head on, using their rules.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

What does that matter? Whether they won any battles or not is immaterial, they slowly, but surely took control of the Territory eventually making Victory for the US impossible. I'll give you that the dedication of the North Vietnamese made it all happen, but to turn around and say that the US Media lost the War is patently ridiculous. The North Vietnamese eventually won the South Vietnamese to their cause, a cause more compelling than the support of a corrupt regime they lived under and certainly more compelling than supporting some foreign power.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

What does that matter? Whether they won any battles or not is immaterial, they slowly, but surely took control of the Territory eventually making Victory for the US impossible. I'll give you that the dedication of the North Vietnamese made it all happen, but to turn around and say that the US Media lost the War is patently ridiculous. The North Vietnamese eventually won the South Vietnamese to their cause, a cause more compelling than the support of a corrupt regime they lived under and certainly more compelling than supporting some foreign power.

So how did they gain territory if they didnt win battles?

Just keep making stuff up to fit the view you want to have. The universal truth of wars transcend far beyond all of them.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

What does that matter? Whether they won any battles or not is immaterial, they slowly, but surely took control of the Territory eventually making Victory for the US impossible. I'll give you that the dedication of the North Vietnamese made it all happen, but to turn around and say that the US Media lost the War is patently ridiculous. The North Vietnamese eventually won the South Vietnamese to their cause, a cause more compelling than the support of a corrupt regime they lived under and certainly more compelling than supporting some foreign power.

So how did they gain territory if they didnt win battles?

Just keep making stuff up to fit the view you want to have. The universal truth of wars transcend far beyond all of them.

They just took it. How did the US win every battle at the sametime the battle began to take over South Vietnam?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

What does that matter? Whether they won any battles or not is immaterial, they slowly, but surely took control of the Territory eventually making Victory for the US impossible. I'll give you that the dedication of the North Vietnamese made it all happen, but to turn around and say that the US Media lost the War is patently ridiculous. The North Vietnamese eventually won the South Vietnamese to their cause, a cause more compelling than the support of a corrupt regime they lived under and certainly more compelling than supporting some foreign power.

So how did they gain territory if they didnt win battles?

Just keep making stuff up to fit the view you want to have. The universal truth of wars transcend far beyond all of them.

They just took it. How did the US win every battle at the sametime the battle began to take over South Vietnam?

They didnt take it, they walked in after US troops were pulled out.

Maybe you should learn a little history before trying to debate it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Train
Before you all brush off the power of the media to demise its own military, Think about this, North Vietnam did not win a single significant battle against the USA, yet they drove us out like they were kicking our ass. hmmmm

General Vo Nguyen Giap was coincidentally, a military history teacher. He used one simple truth to get the superior forces to run away. Wars are won or lost in the will of the people.

Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the 1) will of the people, 2) the political leadership of the government, and 3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.

I guarantee you that if the Media stopped reporting car bombs in Baghdad, the bombings would soon stop. Terrorism is not terrorism without the fear that goes with it. The intended result of each car bomb is not the handful of people it can kill/injure, it's the thousands, if not millions, of people it can scare.

Ya, sure. Just like how before Television the Iraqi's stopped attacking the British.

The whole Vietnam/Media at fault thing was all nice and good decades ago, for an excuse as to why Vietnam was lost. Unfortunetly that was just a sweet nothing, like how everyone has gone to a better place when they die.

Guess it makes you feel better to turn a blind eye to hundreds of years of military theory.

Ignorance is bliss eh?

Military Theory vs Historical Record, I'll take the Recording over the Theory.

Ahh, but you ignored the history. DID North Vietnam win a single battle in the Vietnam war? The answer is no.

What does that matter? Whether they won any battles or not is immaterial, they slowly, but surely took control of the Territory eventually making Victory for the US impossible. I'll give you that the dedication of the North Vietnamese made it all happen, but to turn around and say that the US Media lost the War is patently ridiculous. The North Vietnamese eventually won the South Vietnamese to their cause, a cause more compelling than the support of a corrupt regime they lived under and certainly more compelling than supporting some foreign power.

So how did they gain territory if they didnt win battles?

Just keep making stuff up to fit the view you want to have. The universal truth of wars transcend far beyond all of them.

They just took it. How did the US win every battle at the sametime the battle began to take over South Vietnam?

They didnt take it, they walked in after US troops were pulled out.

Maybe you should learn a little history before trying to debate it.

The Tet Offensive didn't happen until after the US pulled out?

 

[BBond]

I'd say Bush's "Bring 'em on!" did the most damage. Disagree? Just click on the Fool's quote in my sig and you'll see...