Originally posted by kaskad
How about Vietnam ? got your asses kicked by a bunch of peasants, eh ?
Lets not forget Iraq, still getting your asses kicked there as well, eh ?
not going to talk about the body count, that's just way too low for me to talk about it.
Hope I did not offend any people exept Shadow and a couple other ones in this thread.
kaskad, the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan full force and got their butts kicked. The U.S. military went into Vietnam with its hands tied behind
its back. During most of the Vietnam War, the majority of Northern Vietnam was off-limits to bombing. The Soviet supply lines to Northern Vietnam were
not bombed, and the capital was in full operation. The Northern Vietnamese thus could attack the U.S. soldiers, then retreat and re-supply and the
U.S. could not retaliate.
President Johnson himself chose where to bomb, something the President is not allowed to do anymore because they don't know what they're doing.
Because of his not allowing the U.S. to attack Northern Vietnam at all, the Vietnam War went on for a loooong time, resulting in the deaths of
thousands of U.S. soldiers, innocent Southern Vietnamese, and lots of Northern Vietnamese, and causing literal hell for the innocent families that
lost sons and fathers in the war.
Johnson went insane because of this, knowing he was responsible for so many deaths and so much devastation. When he left office, and Nixon (a
Republican) came in, they immediately opened up Northern Vietnam to bombing. The U.S. bombed Northern Vietnam and its capital city, shut the down the
capital in a matter of hours and completely cut off the Soviet supply lines. The Northern Vietnamese government, being helpless, wanted to negotiate
Which means that had Johnson allowed Northern Vietnam to be opened for bombing from the start, a LOT LESS people would have died and the Vietnam War
might have been SHORTER than the Gulf War.
What is even stranger is that when the U.S. had its first big battle in Vietnam, it WON, despite the fact it was fighting with its hands tied behind
its back. It won the battle, and Northern Vietnam was ready to negotiate. They knew they could not stand up against the U.S. But the MEDIA in the U.S.
completely twisted the facts and made it seem as if the U.S. had lost the battle, badly. People called for the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam. The
Vietnamese government and leader, upon learning this, decided to hold out, sure that public pressure would force the President to pull out the U.S.
But he didn't. He forced them to keep fighting with their hands tied up. It's kind of hard to fight the enemy when you cannot attack them. That is
why the President is no longer allowed to make direct decisions as to where and what to bomb and attack. He tells the military what to do, and they
keep him updated. This is so that no liberal, anti-war President in office can tie up the military like Johnson did.
People of the era (and hardcore liberals today) like to refer to soldiers as "baby killers," yet, this was one of the tactics the Vietnamese used
against the American troops. An American soldier is not allowed to shoot a surrendering person of the enemy, and is especially not allowed to shoot a
child. The Vietnamese knew this, so THEY STRAPPED BOMBS TO THEIR CHILDREN AND SENT THEM OVER TO AMERICAN G.I.s TO BLOW THEM UP. Those were your real
And since all Vietnamese looked the same, American troops couldn't tell if a person was Northern or Southern Vietnamese. It was incredibly easy for
the Vietnamese to integrate spies amongst the American soldiers.
I couldn't believe it when I used to hear liberals saying how Bush was going to turn Iraq into "another Vietnam," back when the Iraq War was first
starting. For Bush to turn Iraq into another Vietnam, he LITERALLY would have had to order the military NOT to bomb or attack ANY of Saddam Hussein's
infrastructure targets. The Iraqi military would have had to have been left in full operation. Supply lines included, would not be allowed to be
bombed. Then the Army would be sent in under strict orders to fight the Iraqi Army, but not allowed to go and attack Baghdad.
But the President is not allowed to do that these days. And the military has certain loopholes for getting around certain rules as to who they can
shoot at. For example, if a terrorist is aiming an AK-47 at you and literally shooting, if you are manning a .50 caliber, in certain cases you are
technically NOT allowed to shoot back at the guy, because your weapon is too superior. You have to get an M16 or an M4 or something to shoot at the
Well any idiot in their right mind will just shoot back at the terrorist if your life is on the line or your friends' lives. But then you can land in
jail since the terrorist "only" had an AK-47 and you had the .50 caliber. So you say that, "No officer, I was shooting at his equipment." If you
were shooting at the terrorist himself, you could go to jail. But by "shooting at his equipment," you are fine.
Now, you mention Somalia. AGAIN, the Army went in there IMPROPERLY equipped. You want to know why? Because our wonderful President at the time, Bill
Clinton, assigned that anti-war guy, Les Craven, who had a known history of doing things to undermine the military, to be Secretary of Defense. The
military wanted to take C-130 gunships into Somalia and the Abrams tank. But Les Craven would not allow it. Thus, the Rangers went in there poorly
equipped. Despite this, they still killed a LOT more Somalies then the Somalies killed of them.
The same happened in Vietnam, too. The U.S. killed a LOT more Vietnamese then lost of its own soldiers. Contrast this with the Soviet Union, who went
into Afghanistan full force without any knowledge of the term "political correctness" and STILL got their butts handed to them.
Another thing I often don't get, is I remember some liberal woman on the news saying about how she knew a Republican who met Clinton and said, "You
know, he is such a nice person, you just love the guy regardless," WHO CARES. Politicians WANT people to judge them by their personality, NOT by
their policies and so forth. But that is very wrong, and shows the stupidity of the public. You judge a politician by their policies and their
character, not how "nice" they are to be around.
The only reason Clinton ever got into office was because he seemed so "nice" and was a good people person. A lot of his policies are what led to the
current war in Iraq and the situation there.
As for Iraq currently, contrary to what the media likes to tell you, no we are not "losing" the war. We are winning the hearts and minds of the
Iraqi people there, and any Infantry soldier who has been there for real and seen combat will tell you that.
Something would be wrong if body bags were pouring in like during Vietnam (and something then WAS wrong----the military wasn't allowed to attack the
enemy, so of course lots of American troops would be slaughtered!).