War supporters-Please do not make the same stupid mistake again.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Whats makes us so better?

You're asking the moral question, but I doubt it gets looked at by any government when they consider strategic advantage or self-preservation.

I see it as kids in a schoolyard. Tactically speaking, you'll never see the kid armed with all the rocks and sticks offer them out "just to be fair".

. . =(_8^(1)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

We are the only country who has used two nuclear bombs, and our president recently mentioned how he would be willing to use the same weapons on a country that does not have them.

So I ask you this what gives us the right? Whats makes us so better?

The two bombs saved lives in WW2. I find it amazing that people get upset at the two nuclear devices, but are not up in arms over the Firebombing of Tokyo that claimed even more lives than the two bombs. One form of killing is not OK, and the other evil. However, in this case the bombs worked when the firebombing did not.

The declared war gave us the right to end the war.

Are we better? I don't think so. However, there is a big difference between developing a weapon and using it to end a war and then having that weapon since you cannot uninvent it. And creating a weapon to have one.

Quote

They didn’t but from there pervious actions it is obvious that they would if they could.

And your view on Israel is one reason why it would be bad to let Iran have a bomb. You even admit they have not said they would kill everyone, yet claim they would. Iran has said they want to destroy Israel.

So why in the world would it be a good idea to let another Country have such a terrible device? And even more so a Country that has sworn to wipe away another Conutry?

Your arguments for Defense is a good one. However, I seriously doubt that anyone will let them build a bomb. So by trying they are forcing an issue.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I think the way forwards is a non agression pact between Iran and the US, in return for vigirous inspections and controls including the banning of uranium inrichment (it would be imported from Russia instead) in return the US would agree not to persue regime change in any form and the Iranians would withdraw assistance to the insurgency in Iraq. In time Iran would be dependent on the status qou and this may even assist the US in its Israeli/ Palastinian negotiations as Iran could be used to bring preasure to bear on Hammas. Also A non aggression pact would help stabalise the midleeast and the price of oil. Win win!

Comments?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Win win!

Comments?

I don't think Iran would accept such a plan, even under sanctions or imminent threat of attack.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Skyrad 0]

Why? What have they got to loose? American interferance in their domestic issues. Freedom from fear of attack, and the moderates would go for it as it means they would have nuclear power and enhanced support from the masses as they would be somewhat distanced from the US whos support undermines there credability and plays into the hands of the mullahs. (Eventualy the liberals would win over the hard liners) The mullahs of course would claim a great victory in staving off a American attack whilst being seen to be hard negotiators on the world stage. The US would get a good result becuase apart from the benifits aformentioned they would save the lives of thousands of their service personel and possibly civillians at home and elsewhere. Also they would be able to extracate themselves from a costly secret/proxie subversive war which they currently wage against the regime. Thats why I think win win.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[DaVinci 0]

Iran would never agree.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So now we are now equating success with ever growing numbers of attacks? How many hundreds of attacks per day will equate to victory?

I won't address it in that context. Instead, I will in the terms that most insurgents are attempting to organize into more "traditional" organizations, which means that we've weathered the unconventional tactics and managed to infiltrate them.

As their attacks grew more "organzied" and "head on". They get wiped out. That is one of the factors that is affecting these statistics.

Obviously zero attacks would be a victory of sorts, but before there can be zero, we have to attack them, or draw them out to attack us, so we can kill them. Once they're dead, we can come home.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I think the way forwards is a non agression pact between Iran and the US, in return for vigirous inspections and controls including the banning of uranium inrichment (it would be imported from Russia instead) in return the US would agree not to persue regime change in any form and the Iranians would withdraw assistance to the insurgency in Iraq. In time Iran would be dependent on the status qou and this may even assist the US in its Israeli/ Palastinian negotiations as Iran could be used to bring preasure to bear on Hammas. Also A non aggression pact would help stabalise the midleeast and the price of oil. Win win!

Absolutely not. Iran had the US by the balls once. They think we're of the same mindset as we were in 1979. They're wrong. If they want to kick France, Germany and the UK repeatedly in the nuts, that's fine. Obviously, and understandably, the US isn't interested in that game. Additionally, Iran has backhandedly violated every agreement it's made with the west and IAEA.

I like this form of a non-aggression pact: Open up your uranium production for inspection and subsequent dismantlement, convert your current reactors to light-water fission, identify current leadership of Hammas and stop all funding to that terrorist organization and we won't bomb you back into the stone age.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you think Iran should be allowed to build nuclear bombs?

Of course!

It's only "fair" we allow other countries to have them. I mean, what right do we have to look after our own self-interests right to plan and wage aggressive war over the interests of other countries?

What kind of country does that?

A country which doesn't follow the "Nazi German Method" of preserving it's economy?

Bzzzt! Godwin's law. You lose.

[Skyrad 0]

So what is the Iranian response? International terrorism on a scale never seen before against US targets, gurella war in Israel, Syria, massive escalation in Iraq, cutting off of oil exports. possible invasion into Iraq and a protracted war which the US can't afford or conduct.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Win win!

Comments?

I don't think Iran would accept such a plan, even under sanctions or imminent threat of attack.

Only one way to find out. Put the offer out there and see what the response is. Then if they refuse, or accept and then no comply, the UN can issue documents yearly complaining about it.

Seriously, you can assume they'll refuse, but making the pitch and getting an answer is the only way to know for sure.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Skyrad 0]

Actualy this is one of the few times you'll hear me say, lets leave the UN out of this. Russia and China will veto any action by the UN so don't even bother with them, also the Iranians aren't interested in the UN they know that its the US they have to worry about.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gawain 0]

If you beat them into absolute submission, to the point that the only thing they want to do is "exist", there won't be any retaliation (they won't have the ability) and their ability to organize any type of support from a position of complete isolation will be ineffective.

Read up on how Nixon got the North Vietnamese to return to the negotiating table in Paris. He bombed Hanoi to ruin. In fact, N. Vietnam was for the first time at that point, a beaten nation. We could have taken them whole if Kennedy and Johnson hadn't micro-f**k*d the whole thing before then.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[penniless 0]

Quote

If you beat them into absolute submission, to the point that the only thing they want to do is "exist", there won't be any retaliation (they won't have the ability) and their ability to organize any type of support from a position of complete isolation will be ineffective.

Read up on how Nixon got the North Vietnamese to return to the negotiating table in Paris. He bombed Hanoi to ruin. In fact, N. Vietnam was for the first time at that point, a beaten nation. We could have taken them whole if Kennedy and Johnson hadn't micro-f**k*d the whole thing before then.

How come we left with our tail between our legs, then, if NV was "a beaten nation"? There's something seriously wrong with your logic.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

If you beat them into absolute submission, to the point that the only thing they want to do is "exist", there won't be any retaliation (they won't have the ability) and their ability to organize any type of support from a position of complete isolation will be ineffective.

Read up on how Nixon got the North Vietnamese to return to the negotiating table in Paris. He bombed Hanoi to ruin. In fact, N. Vietnam was for the first time at that point, a beaten nation. We could have taken them whole if Kennedy and Johnson hadn't micro-f**k*d the whole thing before then.

Last time I heard that it was about Afghanistan and the Taliban, now years on American and british servicemen are still dying at the hands of the Taliban and their supporters, and they were a government that even the majority of Islamic countries didn't recognise. If we couldn't do it in Afghanistan what makes you think we'd do any better in a country that has a larger support base and much more effective millitary?
Errm... Hate to break it to you bud, but you lost Vietnam. Sorry.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

If you beat them into absolute submission, to the point that the only thing they want to do is "exist", there won't be any retaliation (they won't have the ability) and their ability to organize any type of support from a position of complete isolation will be ineffective.

Read up on how Nixon got the North Vietnamese to return to the negotiating table in Paris. He bombed Hanoi to ruin. In fact, N. Vietnam was for the first time at that point, a beaten nation. We could have taken them whole if Kennedy and Johnson hadn't micro-f**k*d the whole thing before then.

Last time I heard that it was about Afghanistan and the Taliban, now years on American and british servicemen are still dying at the hands of the Taliban and their supporters, and they were a government that even the majority of Islamic countries didn't recognise. If we couldn't do it in Afghanistan what makes you think we'd do any better in a country that has a larger support base and much more effective millitary?
Errm... Hate to break it to you bud, but you lost Vietnam. Sorry.

What did we lose?

-

[Skyrad 0]

The Vietnam war.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[miked10270 0]

AMERICA DID NOT LOSE THE VIETNAM WAR!!!!!

I have done A LOT of research into this watching everything from "The Green Berets" right through ALL the Rambo films, Apocalypse now, FUll Metal Jacket, Tour of Duty, etc... Hourse and days and weeks of the stuff, and I can confirm that The Americans won EVERY TIME!

What've you got? 5 minutes of crappy newsreel showing a few helicopters being pushed off ships decks wiff a Commie Commentator?

Seriously...

When the Viet-Minh had nearly ousted the French from Indo-China and were forcing them to grant independence to the colony, the French struck a hasty deal with ANYONE who wasn't part of the guerilla movement which has ousted them, then pulled the usual colonial trick of partitioning the country (the same trick that worked so well in The Congo, Ireland, Rwanda, Cyprus, Korea, Angola...)

The resulting South Vietnamese Government were quite frankly a bunch of shits, but they were a bunch of shits who happened to be Anti-Communist (actually anti Ho-Chi-Minh who happened to call himself a Communist). That made them "OUR" bunch of Faschist-Dictator-Shits!

Now... Neither the Chinese, nor the Americans wanted anything to do with Ho-Chi-Minh OR Ngo-Dinh-Diem. Both were more into personal power than actual political belief, but each leader successfully blackmailed their respective superpower sponsors into involvement in this war with: If you don't support us WE'LL LOSE!... And that'll send a message throughout Asia!"

SO... This wasn't a war between Democracy & Communist Dictatorship. It was a war between a Communist Dictatorship and another bunch of totally corrupt, snout-in-the-trough dictators that didn't like the Communist Dictatorship!

So... Strictly speaking, America AND China BOTH won the Vietnam war by getting the hell out from the vietnamese factions blackmails and leaving them to it! OK, the country was "labelled" Communist at the end of the civil war... But it was never a label which had any significance. Minh was about as communist as Pinochet!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[SpeedRacer 1]

yep that about sums it up.

My father gave me a book about the Kennedy administration. That administration was building up the American involvement on the side of the south vietnamese while at the same time complaining about what a shitty government the Diem regime was.

They even contemplated organizing a coupe to overthrow that very regime that they were fighting FOR!! but the problem was they couldn't find anyone decent to take Diem's place.

The whole vietnam thing was totally fucked from the very start.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

and I can confirm that The Americans won EVERY TIME!

of course. that's because American military might is far superior compared to the commies. this difference is sometimes called the "Chuck Norris Gap."

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

AMERICA DID NOT LOSE THE VIETNAM WAR!!!!!

I have done A LOT of research into this watching everything from "The Green Berets" right through ALL the Rambo films, Apocalypse now, FUll Metal Jacket, Tour of Duty, etc... Hourse and days and weeks of the stuff, and I can confirm that The Americans won EVERY TIME!

What've you got? 5 minutes of crappy newsreel showing a few helicopters being pushed off ships decks wiff a Commie Commentator?

Seriously...

When the Viet-Minh had nearly ousted the French from Indo-China and were forcing them to grant independence to the colony, the French struck a hasty deal with ANYONE who wasn't part of the guerilla movement which has ousted them, then pulled the usual colonial trick of partitioning the country (the same trick that worked so well in The Congo, Ireland, Rwanda, Cyprus, Korea, Angola...)

The resulting South Vietnamese Government were quite frankly a bunch of shits, but they were a bunch of shits who happened to be Anti-Communist (actually anti Ho-Chi-Minh who happened to call himself a Communist). That made them "OUR" bunch of Faschist-Dictator-Shits!

Now... Neither the Chinese, nor the Americans wanted anything to do with Ho-Chi-Minh OR Ngo-Dinh-Diem. Both were more into personal power than actual political belief, but each leader successfully blackmailed their respective superpower sponsors into involvement in this war with: If you don't support us WE'LL LOSE!... And that'll send a message throughout Asia!"

SO... This wasn't a war between Democracy & Communist Dictatorship. It was a war between a Communist Dictatorship and another bunch of totally corrupt, snout-in-the-trough dictators that didn't like the Communist Dictatorship!

So... Strictly speaking, America AND China BOTH won the Vietnam war by getting the hell out from the vietnamese factions blackmails and leaving them to it! OK, the country was "labelled" Communist at the end of the civil war... But it was never a label which had any significance. Minh was about as communist as Pinochet!

Mike.

Ahhh....Now I get it, so no doubt Sadam did win the Mother of all battles, and We're winning in Iraq too, I'm sure that will be a great victory as well. So when the bill for a war of attrition gets to high and you ceed territory to the enemy to the point that you have to leave the country having lost thousands of personel and the enemy installs a government in what was friendly territory that is a victory....I get it ! Cool, Well thanks for clearing that up for me Mike.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Gawain 0]

Quote

How come we left with our tail between our legs, then, if NV was "a beaten nation"? There's something seriously wrong with your logic.

It was Nixon's policy of "Vietnamization" per se and a policy of getting the US out of the country. He was not going to do so under fire. Splitting hairs, I know, but that is the distinction.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

How come we left with our tail between our legs, then, if NV was "a beaten nation"? There's something seriously wrong with your logic.

It was Nixon's policy of "Vietnamization" per se and a policy of getting the US out of the country. He was not going to do so under fire. Splitting hairs, I know, but that is the distinction.

Those "beaten nations" can be a problem, can't they? In August 1940 the US ambassador to Britain told Roosevelt that Britain would be defeated in 2 weeks. Sometimes the "beaten nation" doesn't give up so easily.

I notice we're still fighting in Iraq, 3 years after "Mission Accomplished".

[billvon 2,991]

>Strictly speaking, America AND China BOTH won the Vietnam war
>by getting the hell out from the vietnamese factions blackmails and
>leaving them to it!

An interesting take on it, and a good perspective on how "winning" a war often means NOT fighting it. (Which is also how we won the Cold War.) I hope we can learn from our experiences there.