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.

 

Chinese Nukes Aimed at US Cities

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:
MrZ

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
No CHINA LOST 20 000 soldiers dead not to mention wounded, the Vietnamese lost considerably less. If you want to compare casualties the US lost 55000 KIA over 10 years the Chinese lost 20000 KIA over a few weeks. China withdrew because they were rapidly running out of body bags. China is hopeless, they probably only got to Lang Son because the Viets were runningn out of ammo. They withdrew


It is possible that China retreted due to heavy casualties but Vietnam lost similar number of troops. Don't tell me these are Chinese figures, search for youself.

As for war with India, the Chinese decided to attack after India established a few outposts 1 or 2kms into reconised Chinese territory. In the 50s and 60s, India had a "Forward" policy, to enforce their territory claims that were first marked out by the British(Which included extra land than what India was when the british occupied india). India also invaded Sikkim and Goa and Chinese reconised those claims in exchange for India reconising Tibet as Chinese Territory.




posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Watch "The Fog of War." Excellent documentary, very unbiased.

I will check it out.



But see, you're trying to provide a good excuse for us losing. You say we lost because we didn't go on the offensive. That may be true, but being the "American Mad Man," wouldn't you expect the U.S. to win even if we didn't go on the offensive?


No - like I have said, the US - though it is the most powerful country with the best military - is not invincable. The US military is an offensive force, in contrast to say China. By not going on the offensive we willingly played into our enemies strengths and our weaknesses at the same time. And yes - I am providing a good excuse for the US loosing. I think it is a damn good one too.



Whenever you fight a war, whatever the odds, you are always supposed to win.


I would disagree. When a third party evaluates a war, there is usually one side that has some overall advantege. This is the side that is supposed to win. Of course niether side goes into it trying to let the other side win, but in almost all situations there is a somewhat clear picture of which side is supposed to win.



If you hold no advantages, find a way to win. So to try to excuse the loss because we didn't go on the offensive is what's lame, because we should've won anyhow! You don't send men into combat to lose.


And this, again, is where I dissagree. My opinion is that if you are going to go to war, you can't half ass it and handicap yourself. You have to play to your strengths - no matter how superior your military is. We didn't do this.

And that is why when you say "You don't send men into combat to lose" I completely agree. In 'Nam we basically did this. Instead of attacking our enemy swiftly, we fought a long drawn out war. That was a sin commited against our soldiers. As you said, when you go to war, you go to war to win. We didn't do this. If we had gone in there to win, and not pussy foot around, we would have attacked the north in such a manner that they would have been crippled.



If America won the Vietnam War and never went on the offensive, you wouldn't be complaining that the U.S. never went of the offensive. Why? Because since we won, we never needed to.


I think the argument could still be made that the war would have been over sooner and fewer men would have died, thus we would have had a more dominating victory. As you said, hindsight is 20/20, but I feel as if we should have known at the time we needed to go on the offensive to win.



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
No - like I have said, the US - though it is the most powerful country with the best military - is not invincable. The US military is an offensive force, in contrast to say China. By not going on the offensive we willingly played into our enemies strengths and our weaknesses at the same time. And yes - I am providing a good excuse for the US loosing. I think it is a damn good one too.


If your boss gives you something to do but you fail to do it, is your excuse going to be "The assignment wasn't my preference of work?"



I would disagree. When a third party evaluates a war, there is usually one side that has some overall advantege. This is the side that is supposed to win. Of course niether side goes into it trying to let the other side win, but in almost all situations there is a somewhat clear picture of which side is supposed to win.


But thus far, you haven't been evaluating it from a third party. And just because you're not expected to win by a third party does not mean you should concede your chances.



And this, again, is where I dissagree. My opinion is that if you are going to go to war, you can't half ass it and handicap yourself. You have to play to your strengths - no matter how superior your military is. We didn't do this.

And that is why when you say "You don't send men into combat to lose" I completely agree. In 'Nam we basically did this. Instead of attacking our enemy swiftly, we fought a long drawn out war. That was a sin commited against our soldiers. As you said, when you go to war, you go to war to win. We didn't do this. If we had gone in there to win, and not pussy foot around, we would have attacked the north in such a manner that they would have been crippled.


True.



I think the argument could still be made that the war would have been over sooner and fewer men would have died, thus we would have had a more dominating victory. As you said, hindsight is 20/20, but I feel as if we should have known at the time we needed to go on the offensive to win.


Again, watch "The Fog of War." One of the best ever made. It'll prove to you that you are wrong when you say they "should have known at the time," because guess what, they did know. And they had their reasons for not committing. It's very eye-opening. It changed my views on Robert S McNamara and Lyndon B. Johnson completely.

The Vietnam War is definitely the classic/premier case of the unstable relationship between politics and war. The two don't really suit each other and war, like life, is nothing but gray.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
If your boss gives you something to do but you fail to do it, is your excuse going to be "The assignment wasn't my preference of work?"


If my boss told me I had to close a deal, but wasn't allowed to call the client or E-mail him or go see him in person, but was only allowed to use 'snail mail' (and thus severly limiting my ability to do my job in a timely and effective manner, just as it was done in vietnam) I would have to try to get it done (just as we did in 'nam), but clearly my chances of closing the deal before the client balked is greatly decreased.



But thus far, you haven't been evaluating it from a third party. And just because you're not expected to win by a third party does not mean you should concede your chances.


I think just about everyone would have given the military advantege to the US. So saying that I haven't been evaluating it from a 3rd party point of view doesn't matter. The fact is that most expected the US to be able to win - be it the US or a 3rd party.

As far as not "conceding your chances" - Yeah, that's preatty obvious.




Again, watch "The Fog of War." One of the best ever made. It'll prove to you that you are wrong when you say they "should have known at the time," because guess what, they did know. And they had their reasons for not committing. It's very eye-opening. It changed my views on Robert S McNamara and Lyndon B. Johnson completely.

The Vietnam War is definitely the classic/premier case of the unstable relationship between politics and war. The two don't really suit each other and war, like life, is nothing but gray.


I'll check it out next time I'm at the lib or blockbuster. But could you tell me the reasoning? Was it a fear of war with Russia and/or China? Or something else?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
You guys especially mad guy should shut the hell up. Idiots like you are the kind that play armchair general, neither volunteering or doing anything worthwhile except to send many young men to war.

You are unamericans.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
And how do you suppose these generals get to that armchair, eh goldenboy? Do you think it's just an inherited right? Please do explain.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If my boss told me I had to close a deal, but wasn't allowed to call the client or E-mail him or go see him in person, but was only allowed to use 'snail mail' (and thus severly limiting my ability to do my job in a timely and effective manner, just as it was done in vietnam) I would have to try to get it done (just as we did in 'nam), but clearly my chances of closing the deal before the client balked is greatly decreased.


Exactly my point. You would not try to say "It wasn't my preferred assignment" as an excuse. Your chances of success may be decreased, but you would give it an honest attempt and not use the excuse that it wasn't suited for you.




I think just about everyone would have given the military advantege to the US. So saying that I haven't been evaluating it from a 3rd party point of view doesn't matter. The fact is that most expected the US to be able to win - be it the US or a 3rd party.


So if the U.S. expected it to win, that doesn't matter then, because even with the expectation, the "underdog" won.



I'll check it out next time I'm at the lib or blockbuster. But could you tell me the reasoning? Was it a fear of war with Russia and/or China? Or something else?


McNamara doesn't go into the smallest detail, but I think he was being honest. Anyway, he was saying why Lyndon B. Johnson was supposedly "ignorant" of other avenues of the Vietnam situation. According to McNamara, he was ignorant because he wasn't! From what he knew and what he explored in those other options, they opened up a path to war with China, and perhaps even nuclear war! Now why would anybody want to risk that?

Also, remember this was the Cold War. You have to get away from the New World Order-thinking. Everything in the Cold War had thick cables, not strings attached. Meaning if you made a mistake, you were screwed big-time. Look at how many low-intensity conflicts America was involved in during the Cold War. Almost none! In the 1990s alone, we had nothing but low-intensity conflict! Because in the Cold War, the Soviet Union and America were both looking to keep each other from succeeding at all costs. Thus, they couldn't afford to keep going to small war after small war. Vietnam was different. They were more influenced by China than Russia and being "insignificant" made it a jucier opportunity to stay ahead of the Soviet Union. Yet because of their ties to China, how could the U.S. escalate the conflict by invading North Vietnam, deliberately threaten Chinese interests? How and why would anyone do such a thing in such a time?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldenboy
You guys especially mad guy should shut the hell up. Idiots like you are the kind that play armchair general, neither volunteering or doing anything worthwhile except to send many young men to war.

You are unamericans.


I agree. I don't call them "idiots," but let's face it, the battlefield is different from a computer screen.

Like I say, they're itchin' for a war!



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by goldenboy
You guys especially mad guy should shut the hell up. Idiots like you are the kind that play armchair general, neither volunteering or doing anything worthwhile except to send many young men to war.

You are unamericans.


I agree. I don't call them "idiots," but let's face it, the battlefield is different from a computer screen.

Like I say, they're itchin' for a war!


We aren't itching for war we're just putting our opinions forward as to what would happen if it ever came down to it. Obviously goldenboy doesn 't understand this and from the quality of his post probably doesn't have the IQ to. Why bother posting if you're just going to insult poeple and not add any inforamtion to the post. WEAK



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldenboy
You guys especially mad guy should shut the hell up. Idiots like you are the kind that play armchair general, neither volunteering or doing anything worthwhile except to send many young men to war.

You are unamericans.




No - you are the idiot. Had you actually read the posts you would have noticed that I did volunteer. But I can't pass a physical because I blew out my knee playing football. So don't give me this # that I just sit around playing armchair general - I tried to join the service. I couldn't get in because I can't really run anymore.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Exactly my point. You would not try to say "It wasn't my preferred assignment" as an excuse. Your chances of success may be decreased, but you would give it an honest attempt and not use the excuse that it wasn't suited for you.

I agree - BUT, no boss in the world would ever intentionally try to make his employees job harder, and restrict the tools available to him to get the job done. If he did, he'd be fired. Hence why I have such strong feelings about this. If you are going to go to war and put hundreds of thousands of mens lives at stake, you had better do everything you can to insure victory. That was exactly the opposite of what was done (IMO).



So if the U.S. expected it to win, that doesn't matter then, because even with the expectation, the "underdog" won.


Yes, they did. And like I said - I believe it to be because the US handicapped it's self from prosecuting the war to it's advantege. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you play to your weaknesses and your opponets strengths, you will lose.



McNamara doesn't go into the smallest detail, but I think he was being honest. Anyway, he was saying why Lyndon B. Johnson was supposedly "ignorant" of other avenues of the Vietnam situation. According to McNamara, he was ignorant because he wasn't! From what he knew and what he explored in those other options, they opened up a path to war with China, and perhaps even nuclear war! Now why would anybody want to risk that?

OK, I am aware of this argument - but not in the finest detail. I will check out that vid to see if I change my mind, but I am still of the opinion that if we wanted to win the war we needed to go on the offensive.



Also, remember this was the Cold War. You have to get away from the New World Order-thinking. Everything in the Cold War had thick cables, not strings attached. Meaning if you made a mistake, you were screwed big-time. Look at how many low-intensity conflicts America was involved in during the Cold War. Almost none!

I see whre you are going with this, and I somewhat agree - but there is no way you can say that the US was not involved in very many LI conflicts. We were involved in plenty.



Almost none! In the 1990s alone, we had nothing but low-intensity conflict! Because in the Cold War, the Soviet Union and America were both looking to keep each other from succeeding at all costs. Thus, they couldn't afford to keep going to small war after small war. Vietnam was different. They were more influenced by China than Russia and being "insignificant" made it a jucier opportunity to stay ahead of the Soviet Union. Yet because of their ties to China, how could the U.S. escalate the conflict by invading North Vietnam, deliberately threaten Chinese interests? How and why would anyone do such a thing in such a time?


Because China would not have attacked the US. They were even more behind the US then then they are now. All that needed to be done was to tell China - call off the dog, or we will put it down. If they don't call off the north, then you go in kick ass and take names. Take away their ability to wage war, then get out.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Like I say, they're itchin' for a war!


This is one thing I don't get. How is arguing a point of military superiority (in the case of US vs China) or saying that a different path would have won Vietnam equate to "itchin" for a war? Have I ever said once that I want a war? Have I ever said that war is good?

The fact is that I didn't - never once did I voice any opinion like it. But because I actually will say that the US has a better military, and thus would win a confrontation with China over Taiwan, I am given the title of war hungry. Nothing could be farther from the case, but I am not about to give up my opinion just so a bunch of Chinamen can feel better about their country. Basically, I tell it like I see it.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I agree - BUT, no boss in the world would ever intentionally try to make his employees job harder, and restrict the tools available to him to get the job done. If he did, he'd be fired. Hence why I have such strong feelings about this. If you are going to go to war and put hundreds of thousands of mens lives at stake, you had better do everything you can to insure victory. That was exactly the opposite of what was done (IMO).


Well, the principle still is the same. And the situation I presented was hypothetical.



OK, I am aware of this argument - but not in the finest detail. I will check out that vid to see if I change my mind, but I am still of the opinion that if we wanted to win the war we needed to go on the offensive.


In retrospect, going on the offensive would've probably changed the outcome, yes. But the point is moot, because it would've had other factors that were too much of a risk to take.



Because China would not have attacked the US. They were even more behind the US then then they are now. All that needed to be done was to tell China - call off the dog, or we will put it down. If they don't call off the north, then you go in kick ass and take names. Take away their ability to wage war, then get out.


Again, you're using New World Order thinking to comprehend the situation. The Cold War was a very different time, and I am just beginning to understand just how different of a world it was. Even the 1980s were hardly indicative of the Cold War atmosphere. No different with China. China is not the same country today as it was in 1965. It was more like Vietnam, and it didn't care how behind it was from the U.S. Johnson knew China was just sitting on a U.S. invasion of North Vietnam, and that's why he never went on the offensive. Again, thick cables. Invade North Vietnam, China is not afraid to protect it's interests in North Vietnam. The Soviet Union feels threatened, boom. The reverse domino effect.

The objective of all nations in the Cold War, especially America and the Soviet Union, was always avoid the big war, even if it didn't involve America or the Soviet Union. That was what Johnson was trying to avoid, a big war. Again, very different times.



[edit on 11-9-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

This is one thing I don't get. How is arguing a point of military superiority (in the case of US vs China) or saying that a different path would have won Vietnam equate to "itchin" for a war? Have I ever said once that I want a war? Have I ever said that war is good?

The fact is that I didn't - never once did I voice any opinion like it. But because I actually will say that the US has a better military, and thus would win a confrontation with China over Taiwan, I am given the title of war hungry. Nothing could be farther from the case, but I am not about to give up my opinion just so a bunch of Chinamen can feel better about their country. Basically, I tell it like I see it.


If you don't like war, then that's great.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Like I say, they're itchin' for a war!


This is one thing I don't get. How is arguing a point of military superiority (in the case of US vs China) or saying that a different path would have won Vietnam equate to "itchin" for a war? Have I ever said once that I want a war? Have I ever said that war is good?

The fact is that I didn't - never once did I voice any opinion like it. But because I actually will say that the US has a better military, and thus would win a confrontation with China over Taiwan, I am given the title of war hungry. Nothing could be farther from the case, but I am not about to give up my opinion just so a bunch of Chinamen can feel better about their country. Basically, I tell it like I see it.



I want to see you volunteer for the next war. seriously, I want to know if you really mean what you say. I want you to see what war is like. You think war is a piece of cake, but it's not. No matter how technologically superior you are, the grunt who is there risking loss of life and limbs understands war is not a game.

The reason why I detest armchair generals is you show no respect at all for war. True generals like General Colin Powell, he is very conservative about going off to war for political reasons. Thats because he respects his soliders, and doesn't want to endanger them needlessly. Meanwhile, neocons like Bush and Cheny who never ONCE served, are plotting war after war like it's a game.

Which camp do you fall under? Obviously if you look upon China as the next enemy, and boast about defeating it, your mentality is exactly like the chicken-hawks because real generals wouldn't be so rash and brash. They understand the danger of war.

You idiots should seriously sign up for the next war. I want to see you come back after serving a tour in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, for the next year, spending day after day in danger. Then you can come back and tell us how superior USA is, and how it will crush any enemy.

You know, for all of America's vaunted might, it is slowly bleeding to death in Iraq because UnAmericans like YOU chose to fight a needless war. Soldiers are out there dying, or losing limbs because of idiots like you.

So far, over 1,000 men have died, and thousands more have faced serious injuries. Why don't you "brave" men sign up and fight TODAY? We need you!!



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldenboy
I want to see you volunteer for the next war. seriously, I want to know if you really mean what you say. I want you to see what war is like. You think war is a piece of cake, but it's not. No matter how technologically superior you are, the grunt who is there risking loss of life and limbs understands war is not a game.

No #ing # war is not a game! When the hell did I ever say that? Again, you are impossing your view of how I think and what I believe on to me, without ever reading what I said, Please show me one place where I ever said that I wanted a war, thought war was easy, thought it wasn't bad ect ect ect.

Again - READ WHAT I WRITE, I HAVE TRIED TO JOIN THE MARINES IN THE PAST. THE FACT THAT I CAN NOT PERFORM PHYSICALLY BECAUSE MY KNEE WAS BENT 90 DEGREES THE WRONG WAY PLAYING FOOTBALL (American) PREVENTS ME FROM EVER BEING ABLE TO BE A SOLDIER. I CAN BARELY RUN, MUCH LESS HAVE 100 POUNDS OF EQUIPMENT ON MY BACK AND RUN AROUND.



The reason why I detest armchair generals is you show no respect at all for war. True generals like General Colin Powell, he is very conservative about going off to war for political reasons. Thats because he respects his soliders, and doesn't want to endanger them needlessly. Meanwhile, neocons like Bush and Cheny who never ONCE served, are plotting war after war like it's a game.

You really never even read what I said did you? My whole argument about vietnam was that WE LOST MORE MEN BECAUSE OF THE TACTICS WE USED. I ARGUED THAT AN OFFENSIVE APROACH WOULD HAVE SAVED LIVES ON OUR SIDE.



Which camp do you fall under? Obviously if you look upon China as the next enemy, and boast about defeating it, your mentality is exactly like the chicken-hawks because real generals wouldn't be so rash and brash. They understand the danger of war.


Obviously - you are the idiot here. I never once said they were "the next great enemy" only that they were a competitor. I took a hypothetical situation (Taiwan) and stated because of our superior military, if we were to get involved (which I believe we would) we would repell China. I am allowed to say who I think would win in a hypothetical situation that everyone was discussing. If you don't like my opinion then # OFF. But don't assume and presume you know how I think because you don't.



You idiots should seriously sign up for the next war. I want to see you
come back after serving a tour in Iraq, RIGHT NOW, for the next year, spending day after day in danger. Then you can come back and tell us how superior USA is, and how it will crush any enemy.


READ MY POSTS.



You know, for all of America's vaunted might, it is slowly bleeding to death in Iraq because UnAmericans like YOU chose to fight a needless war. Soldiers are out there dying, or losing limbs because of idiots like you.


READ MY POSTS



So far, over 1,000 men have died, and thousands more have faced serious injuries. Why don't you "brave" men sign up and fight TODAY? We need you!!


READ MY POSTS



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Chill out AMM. I think you guys are mixing him up with Westpoint23. I do believe AMM is being honest and frank though, you guys are just shooting him down for everything he says.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
Chill out AMM. I think you guys are mixing him up with Westpoint23. I do believe AMM is being honest and frank though, you guys are just shooting him down for everything he says.


It is not the fact that someone dissagrees with me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this site is more or less to debate those views. It is when people like goldenboy sit here and claim i am some kind of warmonger just because I talk about war. It's pathetic, and it really pisses me off.

By that logic no one is ever allowed to discuss anything they have not participated in. If that were the case, there wouldn't be much to talk about would there?



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldenboy
You guys especially mad guy should shut the hell up. Idiots like you are the kind that play armchair general, neither volunteering or doing anything worthwhile except to send many young men to war.

You are unamericans.


I'd rather be an idiot like us than an idiot like you!


Shut us up! Come on now! SHUT US UP!



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
This thread is one of the ugliest I have read!

Since when is talking about hypothetical situations (a war with China), and reviewing history un-American?

I served in the 2d Ranger Battalion. I had the honor of serving with some really great and brave patriots. I also know plenty of great and brave patriots who never served.

I would like to think that we could disagree agreeably. So AMM couldn't serve. SO WHAT! He has the same right to discuss, think and disagree as any other member of a free society.

Or should we start to determine who has the right to discuss issues in a forum. Perhaps only veteran's should vote? How about veterans who served their country but not in wartime. Is there service any less valid?

I know, let's only allow veteran's with the correct MOS to vote. Only veterans from combat arms units with the right job can vote. Wouldn't want the guy in the arms room, or the motor pool to get mixed up with us American's with the real combat experience. Give me a break!

I agree. It is a terrible thing, war and combat. It is horrible for the grunt, no matter what advantage you may have, your friend lying dead in your arms is horrible. But we would be ignorant to not explore the possibility of future conflicts, especially since those in power, regardless of the party, will make those, and impose those decisions upon those who serve, and those who wait at home for them.

Sorry for the run on here,
I was a little frustrated by the tone of the conversation.

The Spider



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join