One, then I guess they're about due for an attack. And B, I think it's pretty apparent the U.S. aims it's piss at other countries and not our own pants, thank-you-very-much.
Three words.
War on Terror.
Stationed in Iraq are you?
One, then I guess they're about due for an attack. And B, I think it's pretty apparent the U.S. aims it's piss at other countries and not our own pants, thank-you-very-much.
Three words.
War on Terror.
Stationed in Iraq are you?
Was there this past summer.
Covet thine own hypothesis, if thou must.Stop being so pathetic that you can't admitwinninglosing. We were most certainly defeated in Vietnam, because we were compelled to withdraw, leaving the blood-soaked battlefields to the control of the Hanoi government we had opposed through a particularly long, vicious, and entirely avoidable war.
• Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.
• Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.
The United States dind not lose the war in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did. Read on........
The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States. As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However, inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous.
Please give all credit and research to:
Capt. Marshal Hanson, U.S.N.R (Ret.)
Capt. Scott Beaton, Statistical Source
We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet Nam. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise...
We are also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war.
We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Viet Nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia as we did in Europe in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."...
Our objective is the independence of South Viet Nam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves only that the people of South Viet Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way. We will do everything necessary to reach that objective. And we will do only what is absolutely necessary.
If we allow Vietnam to fall, tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week in San Francisco.
'No one starts a war -- or, rather, no one in his senses ought to do so -- without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to achieve it.
Since when has judgement ever been the actual fact of the underlying matter?Mr. G: "your narrative can't be defended as being the definitive interpretation of the relevant events and history, otherwise there'd be more people agreeing with you than there actually are."
It's not my narrative. It's the verdict of history, shared by the overwhelming majority of humanity.
The casualties from the US bombing campaign in Cambodia and Vietnam are not included in that little bit of whitewashing. Neither are the assassinations and tortures of the American invasion.article said:There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States.
Whatever floats your boat.The casualties from the US bombing campaign in Cambodia and Vietnam are not included in that little bit of whitewashing. Neither are the assassinations and tortures of the American invasion.
They never happened. And so none of the consequences of them - such as the rise, in Cambodia, of some genuine insanity in the middle of what had been made chaos - are presented as consequences. They come from nowhere, these horrors, and are the complete fault of whoever is committing them at the moment, in the American mind.
The US did not lose a major battle in Vietnam, and its military retired from the field undefeated. But the US lost.
Struggles so wrongheaded, so misguided, that one can win every battle and every war and still have lost in the end, should seldom be joined. We are in one now, in Iraq.
If the US won in Vietnam then the British won in the american revolution. You can't have it both ways.
Typical liberal mentality, confusing Hollywood for real life.
So you think attacking Iraqis makes you feel safer?
Attacking Iraq in the first place? I'd have felt safe if Saddam was in power. He'll, I feel safe now he's out of power too. Attacking Iraqi's now that we're already there? None of us out there this past deployed had to attack anyone unless they were shooting at us or setting IEDs or driving around VBIEDs.
Don't ask this.So how many people did you kill?