It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America Won the Vietnam War ! - Yes you heard right.

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Mr D.
being a child of the vietnam war, I have temendous respect for all of the servicemen and women that fought.
I commend your service and all of those that served and sacrificed for someone elses country.

for me the war was personal, I remember playing at a friends house when his mother recieved news that his father had been KIA.
Another friends father came back minus his legs, and one of my uncles came back with a heroin habit. It took him almost thirty years to get back on track.
it really rankles my hide when some johnny come lately tries to imply we were an invader.
The north was a constant agressor during the vietnam war, while we were forced to fight a defensive war, something that the us military had no experience in.
they invaded laos and cambodia, and brought the war to them, not us .


I suggest that everyone who isnt old enough to have been there or have followed along watch the documentary, "The fog of war" about the viet nam war.
When R Mcnamara, states the North Vietnamese "achieved nothing more than what we were willing to give them, A united Vietnam", it makes a really strong point.
If the north vietnames had just stopped the shooting we were willing to have the north and south reunited,

So since our only goal was a reunited vietnam we did win the war.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


punkin, thank you.

Those fathers, uncles, and neighbors you knew were my friends and brothers.

We shared everything. We were all we had.

As a boy I read the Greek classics, of clever Theseus, of wise Thales, of unselfish Lycurgus, of the creative Solon, of the vulnerable hero Achilles, of the cursed but determined Odysseus, of the incredible Heracles, and the courageous Perseus.

I knew men of their equal, but by different names.

Thus my good fortune and I remember them all, holding each in awe.

We were the immortals.

For a while.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Sorry, but that post might be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. By that logic the Nazis won WWII because they killed between 6 and 12 million people. Killing is not the objective of a war, the true objective is to liberate and conquer.


These are the numbers for people executed - new estimates for total deaths for world war two are 76 million - like I always say the Zionist emphasis on the Jewish tragedy has completely destroyed the tragedy of the 70 million non-jews who died. Anyone would think the western and eastern front didn't exist.

The Americans retreated - they lost. They are pulling out of Iraq, and are about to give up on Afghanistan - the only war they have ever won was the one they waged against their own people.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
All the Masters of Warfare have known this for millennia, and all of them have stated the same.


The same masters who sit in chairs in the relative safety of their homes and families? Real wars are based on conventional numbers and tactics. Death has absolutely nothing to do with the overall outcome of battle if the losing side has what it takes to win in the end. Look at the Soviets in WWII, they had over half of all WWII deaths and they won the war because they had the sheer numbers and more effective tactics.

Personally I think it is pure ignorance to believe that killing more people wins wars. It doesn't even make sense to me. I can understand what you meant before about the US going to war just to advance technology, but that doesn't mean the US won the war.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
That was meant to be funny right?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


For most sane, rational, prudent people, outright stupidity is normally not considered a virtue.

The Masters of Warfare. And no, you won't find them in your video game. The real Masters of Warfare. Men you've never heard of, or never read about, or never read. Thus your complete ignorance of the subject at hand.

Imagine that.

In spite of the avatar, you might have better luck with swapping recipes, or talking about dog shaving.

"The object of pursuit after victory is not only to prevent the enemy from reforming in the instance, but to burn such fear into his vitals that he will never think of reforming again. Therefore, pursue by all means and don't relent until hell or darkness compels you. The foe who has been a fugitive once will never be the same fighter again." Alexander

"It is very difficult to do one's duty. I was considered a barbarian because at the storming of the Praga, 7,000 people were killed. Europe says I'm a monster. I have myself read this in the jpapers, but I would have liked to talk to people about this and ask them: is it not better to finish a war with the death of 7,000 people rather than to drag it on and kill 100,000?" Alexander Suvarov, 1794

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over." William Tecumseh Sherman

War must be made as intense and awful as possible in order to make it short, and thus diminish it's horrors. If you wage war, do it energetically and with severity. This is the only way to make it shorter and consequently less inhuman." Napolean

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can, and keep moving." Ulysses S. Grant

"Limited war means unlimited suffering. Unlimited war means limited suffering." Michael C. Riggs

"Now philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, it is an error that must be extirpated . . ." Clausewitz

"It is fatal wo enter any war without the will to win it." McArthur

"There is one principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." Patton

"Laws are inoperative in war." Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Do not raise troops twice, lest the citizenry become wearied and bitterness arise." Li Quan

"Even if you prevail over others in battle, if you go on too long there will be no profit. In military operations, total victory is important; if you dull your forces and blunt your edge, sustaining casualties and battle fatigue, then you will be exhausted." Jia Lin

"The God of War hates those who hesitate." Euripides

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." British Sea Lord John Fisher

"There are routes not to be followed, armies not to be attacked, citadels not to be besieged, territory not to be fought over, orders of civilian governments not to be obeyed." Sun Tzu

Look, I can do this for the next three days. When I say Masters of Warfare, I'm not talking about your X-box crap.

I mean Masters of Warfare.

Get it?

Yet?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Why hasn't this piece of **** thread been deleted already?!!!!!!!!!

Secound line geez.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Redneck from Hell]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by dooper
 


Mr D.
being a child of the Vietnam war, I have tremendous respect for all of the servicemen and women that fought.
I commend your service and all of those that served and sacrificed for someone else's country.

for me the war was personal, I remember playing at a friends house when his mother received news that his father had been KIA.
Another friends father came back minus his legs, and one of my uncles came back with a heroin habit. It took him almost thirty years to get back on track.
it really rankles my hide when some johnny come lately tries to imply we were an invader.
The north was a constant aggressor during the Vietnam war, while we were forced to fight a defensive war, something that the us military had no experience in.
they invaded Laos and Cambodia, and brought the war to them, not us .


I suggest that everyone who isn't old enough to have been there or have followed along watch the documentary, "The fog of war" about the Vietnam war.
When R Mcnamara, states the North Vietnamese "achieved nothing more than what we were willing to give them, A united Vietnam", it makes a really strong point.
If the north Vietnamese had just stopped the shooting we were willing to have the north and south reunited,

So since our only goal was a reunited Vietnam we did win the war.



Ahhhh - right so America was being attacked - all the way over there in Vietnam - I mean -WTF when did this become part of America ? HHmmmm? Ohhhhhhhhh that's right, you actually believe that you were fighting for democracy and freedom - insert stomach turning cheese cliché, any one of the millions that are poured into society daily to get the moronic foot soldiers to the bidding of the military corporate alliance - you ACTUALLY think that the USA went to Vietnam, stage a false incident in the gulf of Tonkin to set up the Communists - so that they could fight for the rights of the south Viets ? You BELIEVE THAT ?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. How about the Americans were fighting to project market dominance in the region and ensure an ongoing hegemony for their corporate might and access to the worlds greatest untapped populace as publicly and openly admitted to my McNamara and Cheney, and Baker and million others ......you have GOT TO BE KIDDING.

Further and this is just hillarious - the Fog Of War was written and produced to highlight the FACT that McNamara was a war criminal and should be put in Jail - I can not believe that you have completely missed the entire point of the documentary - it was to show how evil the guy was - most people who watch the film come out crying to have learnt the dark reality of US foreign policy - you have completely missed the point of the film - totally. My God - you actually believe that Americas involvement in Vietnam was altruistic.

Then you go on to to discuss the Laos, Cambodian wars, you dropped more munitions on these countries than were dropped in all of WWII - it was the greatest of human tragedies - but you, America was being attacked ? You bombed them because Kissinger a) hoped to cut off supply routes, and B) wanted to prove that he was serious about a cease fire with the north - when you were SURRENDERING. Kissinger openly admits to this - he has plainly and clearly stated it without any hesitation - he learnt that lesson from McNamara and others when they decided to drop Nuclear Weapons on japan NOT becuase it would end the war as Japan had already been decimated through the fire bombings of every major city - rather - to send clear message to the Russians of the willingness of the Americans - Again - McNamara clearly states this and is the epic meaning of the entire movie - HOW CAN YOU HAVE MISSED IT ?

When you read history take you blind fold off - please.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Now take a look at this post here by audas.
He obviously starts off my trying to put words in the mouth of the previous poster. HOW PATHETIC.

He then goes on and on about how we have this again twisted view that we were attacked. Not realizing that what the previous poster was referring to was America fighting a defensive war in the south.
[ AS IN DEFENDING SOUTH VIETNAMESE] then drags in corporate greed. YADDA YADDA BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Like he has no agenda.


Did you notice how he failed to mention who exactly was supplying the north? or that the US kept restraining it's attacks on the North. Nor does he mention that we never invaded the north.




[edit on 28-8-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by dooper
 


Now take a look at this post here by audas.
He obviously starts off my trying to put words in the mouth of the previous poster. HOW PATHETIC.

He then goes on and on about how we have this again twisted view that we were attacked. Not realizing that what the previous poster was referring to was America fighting a defensive war in the south.
[ AS IN DEFENDING SOUTH VIETNAMESE] then drags in corporate greed. YADDA YADDA BLAH BLAH BLAH!

Like he has no agenda.


Did you notice how he failed to mention who exactly was supplying the north? or that the US kept restraining it's attacks on the North. Nor does he mention that we never invaded the north.




[edit on 28-8-2009 by SLAYER69]


No i addressed exactly ALL of those points - sooooo - now who looks real silly.

What is so amusing is now that your post is titghtly locked away in my quote - mods - we can see that you either did not even bother reading my post - making you look profoundly hypocritical or you did not understand it making you look totally stupid - so either your a liar, or stupid. You call - but be honest now as we can all read exactly whats been written here..



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
The vietnam war goal was to remove communism from vietnam. The US pulled out and to this day vietnam is still communist.

Does this end the thread?

don't feed the trolls!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
China and Russia have acquired some kind of 'mythical status' because they seem to mind their own business, are on the road of economic stability and success and don't need to interfere or invade sovereign countries for survival.
They also have the guts and capability to stand against the US, even more so when China is the buyer of US debt and is the one funding its silly ventures.

So yeah it forces admiration.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


With a bit more maturity, you'll come to realize that the status and condition of Russia and China is a very recent development.

Gee.

Ever wonder why we now call Russia "Russia" and no longer refer to the collective of theirs as the Soviet Union?

Ever wonder why there is now no Soviet Union?

And China?

Is it POSSIBLE for someone to read a bit of recent history? We wouldn't speak to the Chinese until Nixon opened the door.

But that wasn't the case during Vietnam.

Vietnam. Another effort to minimize the rapid spread of communism BY FORCE.

Kids.

Oh. And thanks for the respected foe. Coming from you, it's more special.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


your reply with the quotes of notable warmakers of the past is brilliant and the truth.

I remember a quote by a 16th century samarai, that went something like this, "The greatest warrior strives to never raise his sword, but when he does, he kills because he must, not because he wants to. A warrior that kills because he wants to is not a warrior but just a killer."

its sort of on the same lines.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


the soviets and the chinese did much to export the glorius revolution. They armed and incited insurrction in many countries around the world.

And the western world responded, it is so hypocritical to lay the blame on the us alone.

Let me see

theres the czech revolt of 1968 where the czecks wanted be in control of their own destiny, and they were invaded by the ussr and its warsaw pact allies.

then there is the hungarian revolt of 1956

the cuban revolution
then theres the many communist insurections in central and south america.

the chinese invasions of korea ,tibet and india and vietnam in the 80's.
The chinese supplied insurrections in southeast asia, of which vietnam was only one.

A friend of mine was a peace corp worker in the mid 80's, he had served in the military and was well educated, when he was discharged he went into the peace corp and went to peru and spent a year living in a small villiage helping the locals improve thier lot in life, by digging wells and setting a small school to teach the children the basics of reading and writing. And just genreally helping out.
All the while he was there maoist guerrillas would poison the wells by throwing dead animals in them, they would raid villiages and steal all of the food and leave the villiagers to starve.
They would even execute viliage elders if they complained.
In order to understand why, and at great risk to himself because if government authorities found it he would have been executed on the spot, he obtained a copy of Moa's "little red book", and read it thuroughly.
It eventualy saved his life, because after his term was up he decided to ride a bicycle back to the us, and was captured by the rebels after only a couple of days.
He thought for sure they were going to kill him but in the coarse of robbing him they found the copy of moa's manifesto and brought him to the local leadership in order to find out what to do with him.
It was here he met a chinese "advisor" that questioned him at length, my freind wasa able to quote mao almost verse for verse and played thier game and they were quite impressed and released him. They told him as long as he carried the little red book he would be safe from patrols in the area.
But he knew that if he was caught with it otherwise he would be dead, so as soon as he was out of the area he ditched it.

But he said they were very well equipped with the latest chinese weapons, and that there were more than a few chinese "advisors".


There many things that were done in the past that im not proud of but to lay the blame soley on the us is hypocritical fantasy



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Killing is not the objective of a war, the true objective is to liberate and conquer.


I beg to differ with you, but if the killing of human beings isn't the object of war, then pray tell what is the objective of war? You say to liberate and conquer, but how does America liberate and conquer? By the killing of many humans, that's how. Show me one military action that America started that liberated anyone, or conquered any soil, without a body count?

For the record, Americans won all of the battles in Viet Nam, but evacuated when Saigon fell, I remember this clearly. After this, as usual, America paid billions in repatriations, but they waited long enough for the North to keep the prisoners of war. I lost 7 good friends in that God forsaken place.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Surely it matters not who won or lost, both sides took casualties as in all war. The important thing should be a lesson was learned, no matter where or against who any war fought its a terrible thing for soldiers fighting either side and for civilians caught in the middle.

I am the first generation out of the males in my family who has not joined the military in 6 generations. Why would i in the world that we live in today where nobody learns the lessons of the past? I know my grandfather joined up one year younger than than he should of at the out break of ww2 by smudging the date on his birth certificate. Send me back in time put me in the same position and i would do the same thing, without a doubt. He fought for something just and right, without ever losing pride in what was done. The world should have learned just as in WW1 this should never happen again... They didn't.

I have no pretence what war involves and what it does to people, both sides. I have great respect for the sacrifices made by people past and present who are fighting in the hope it will change the world for the better. I think its futile though, many have fought and died and many came back home, still we haven't learnt the lesson as a species war should never happen.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Look, I can do this for the next three days. When I say Masters of Warfare, I'm not talking about your X-box crap.


I don't even know what you're talking about, buddy, but I'm sure if you had even one day into my life you would start to understand what reality really is when it comes to survival. Your so called "masters of warfare" are just philosophers... I have nothing against philosophy, especially considering I am a philosopher myself, but philosophy is not fact but rather personal experience and view. It is not the same for everyone, and is especially different between generals who view battle from a distance and the soldiers who fight with the expectation to die at any given time.

So what is your combat experience exactly? I'll admit it, I have not been in actual war yet (unless you count the wilderness/streets as a battlefield, in which case I have too much experience), but I will be very soon.

And I could go on for three days too, that's how much time I have in this nice warm house until I am going to be left on the street. I will be abandoned by my government, my family and probably my friends and left to survive in a society that I do not understand nor do I fit in. If my life is not an extreme case of irony and uncertainty, than I do not know what is but I would sure like to know.

By the way, here is the only military quote that I live by, said by Stalin himself- "Man causes all problems; No man, no problem". I see war beyond unnecessary borders, on a psychological and spiritual level. War has costs beyond money and troops, for all sides. The only way to stop war itself is to stop men, because men are the dogs of war.


Ever wonder why we now call Russia "Russia" and no longer refer to the collective of theirs as the Soviet Union?


Probably because the Russians are a cunning and prideful people who have the balls to do whatever necessary to evolve as a society, even if it means sacrificing their old society for a new one? The USSR did not collapse or lose to the US in any way, it simply moved on from obsolete Soviet ideals to be prosperous during the 21st century. They commited no fault, so why try to embarrass them when they clearly did what was best?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Probably because the Russians are a cunning and prideful people who have the balls to do whatever necessary to evolve as a society, even if it means sacrificing their old society for a new one? The USSR did not collapse or lose to the US in any way, it simply moved on from obsolete Soviet ideals to be prosperous during the 21st century. They commited no fault, so why try to embarrass them when they clearly did what was best?



Riiiiggghttt!


Do you practice at that level of denial or do you really believe that?
I wonder what made all those break away republics jump ship in the first place?

Oh yeah I forgot they couldn't handle living in a utopia.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Your MetalGear fantasy world of combat doesn't exist. You indicate an immaturity fraught with frustration, mistaken assumptions, lack of historical knowledge, and aborted principles.

Don't be concerned with my combat experience, as it's all I can do to KEEP from recalling that stuff. Many sleepless nights, many ghosts, many nightmares from having to do the same things in the identical same manner hundreds of times.

No peaceful heart here.

A philosopher such as yourself should already know that.

Young man, get an education, put away the wargames, and based on your signature, I'd also recommend some professional help. Everyone could use some once in a while.

And until you get some things squared away, I'd recommend you stay out of the military. You won't make it, your attitude will not be tolerated, and it will be a miserable experience.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by dooper]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join