History/current events

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:18 am

Some people how will remain nameless have history all mixed up so I wonted to clear some stuff up.

1) We had lost Vietnam thats why we pulled out.

2) Iraq has no hope left.

3) The Republicans are trying to keep the war going so they can balm the dems for loosing and avoid repeatability.

4) Bush tax cuts along with many other decision have drained the treasury.

Debate ON!

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:23 am

1) We did NOT lose in Nam.  We pulled out due to diplomatic pressures.  The way the war was run was doomed for failure.  but we pulled out, and then the Existing southern gov't got overrun, which was a blatant violation of the agreement that northern nam signed with the other governments, and yeah.

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:27 am

Well seeing the capital was lost and we had no toe hold left we had lost countless lives and the enemy was just getting stronger and we had no way to revers ower luck I would say we lost.

Well we where virtually ejected what should we have done?

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:40 am

well
the capital was not lost, well, yeah, sort of.  but only because we stopped helping, and were pulling out.  after we left the US embassy, which was being overrun because the evil communist north decided to break their agreement and invade the south vietnam.

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:46 am

Be for we stopped helping we where still in a hopeless situation. After chinas red army got in it their was no way to win. Chana has a very very powerfully army we have lost at least broke even in 2 wars nam being one.

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:53 am

ewm, china was involved in korea, not in nam

[ewm90]

posted on September 6th, 2007, 3:56 am

Last edited by ewm90 on September 6th, 2007, 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

NOM too they armed and trained ower enamys.


BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1979: China invades Vietnam

posted on September 6th, 2007, 4:06 am

Some people how will remain nameless have history all mixed up so I wonted to clear some stuff up.

1) We had lost Vietnam thats why we pulled out.

2) Iraq has no hope left.

3) The Republicans are trying to keep the war going so they can balm the dems for loosing and avoid repeatability.

4) Bush tax cuts along with many other decision have drained the treasury.

Point one, i know nothing of it i wont speak on it. 

Point two, your conjecture no fact.

Point tree, That defies all logic. it dosn't even make sense, it flipping blows my mind.

Point fore, show me, you make statements like its truth and dont show anything.   

posted on September 6th, 2007, 4:11 am

2) it dose Bush speaks of wing but he dose not say what wing would be for him?

3) if not why do they not start making preparation for pulling out.

4) we had a surplus coming in before bush now we have the gap between monny coming and monny going out.

posted on September 7th, 2007, 2:28 am

Some people how will remain nameless have history all mixed up so I wonted to clear some stuff up.

1) We had lost Vietnam thats why we pulled out.

2) Iraq has no hope left.

3) The Republicans are trying to keep the war going so they can balm the dems for loosing and avoid repeatability.

4) Bush tax cuts along with many other decision have drained the treasury.

Debate ON!

I love the way you state this like gospel.

In particular, this part:

3) The Republicans are trying to keep the war going so they can balm the dems for loosing and avoid repeatability.

I xfired that one to some good friends (including a couple diehard democrats whom I often debate) and we all had a good laugh because of it.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on September 7th, 2007, 3:31 am

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on September 7th, 2007, 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm only going to touch this once... and then stand 10 feet back. I won't beat around the bush, no pun intended, so I'll just say that I am quite staunchly anti-Bush to show that I am indeed biased. 
Also I am not going in order so that ... uhm..

Ewm's point about the war and blame seems valid to me (of course you will say he would say this)... as I have indeed pondered about this... Bush can wash his hands of almost all the blame for the current war as a) if the US does pull out AFTER he leaves office and there is no success, the republicants can say "I told you so; you shoulda stayed the course" and b) if the US stays in and fails bush-supporters can just state that "we did not follow the proper action by throwing more money and troops into Iraq", or "circumstances changed". Take it or leave it... this is my opinion, but also based on what happened during the Korean and Vietnam war (do I have to provide evidence....?).

The fourth point is a little too vague in my opinion. I would have stated that current defense policies, scandals, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (yes afghanistan is still there), and tax cuts for the biggest and richest companies in the US have drained the treasury (namely the big petroleum industries and others.... vague eh?).

When one states "we had lost Vietnam thats why we pulled out" one needs to clarify what "lost" really means. Politically the US lost Vietnam. The US administration was no longer supported by the majority of the populace domestically, except for diehards, and in foreign concerns as well, dissent was quite clear (and well voiced). Militarily we had not lost Vietnam: now here me out please (Ewm maybe?). The Tet Offensive was quite devastating, but in all reality (my, hindsight is great) it nearly destroyed the north vietnamese military front. They lost the support of many many influential people pulling the attack off and they lost even more military equipment and soldiers/guerillas. However, when the US retreated, thinking the north would pull off yet another such attack, the support for the north's army and misfit guerillas skyrocketed. Recruitment went up and foreign support increased again. Maybe that answers that.... hopefully 

"Iraq has no hope left" hmmm, too broad and generalized and oversimplified and.... This is a statement that is meant to spark anger or spawn meaningless arguments, not debates. This could mean that Iraq, the country, is now an artificial state and without the military and monetary backbone of the United States, the country would soon collapse. It could also mean that the US has already lost, that the US is retreating and that there is no hope of reconcilling any differences without making several new countries. Maybe it also means that .... help me out here. I am personally ambivalent about this. Iraq is indeed fragmented and the US presense is keeping things from a complete social collapse, but I also think that somebody with more wisdom than I and more knowledge should make the argument: I see that US money and military have not helped, with more houses and cities without basic needs (gas, electricity, water, you get the idea) than ever before. Politically, the administration is fumbling for excuses and retconning the reports, but still things are going south. Thank you for listening.
-dom (maybe not once, because if there is a really interesting post... or just a post...lol)

posted on September 7th, 2007, 5:04 am

Thanks for your feed back RedShirt and Dominus_Noctis. Dominus_Noctis You have some relay relay good points. about the last part of your post Dominus_Noctis Well it all comes down to what you one means by no hope left.

Thar is no hope for a peace full state in Iraq their is no hope for a stable democracy. We maybe be able to make some computerizes and split up the contrite in to self sustain countries. But what ever comes out of this teravisty of justice and sanity will be a disaster is the best case scenario.

posted on September 9th, 2007, 9:40 pm

Ewm's point about the war and blame seems valid to me (of course you will say he would say this)... as I have indeed pondered about this... Bush can wash his hands of almost all the blame for the current war as a) if the US does pull out AFTER he leaves office and there is no success, the republicants can say "I told you so; you shoulda stayed the course" and b) if the US stays in and fails bush-supporters can just state that "we did not follow the proper action by throwing more money and troops into Iraq", or "circumstances changed". Take it or leave it... this is my opinion, but also based on what happened during the Korean and Vietnam war (do I have to provide evidence....?).

Well, I was over at a friend's house for the weekend.  Keep in mind who this friend is; he is not a democrat, although his views are almost entirely liberal. 

He is also willing to change his opinion based on the facts.  He's even changed his opinion on the war a couple times as facts and evidence emerges.  For instance, when the report that 260,000 people have been killed in Iraq came out, he gave me heck over it in our debates.  I responded that it was probably faked and that he should just wait and see.  When it turned out that it was faked, he, not me, brought it up and admitted that I was right, despite his views toward it previously.  He is quite a thinker.

When I brought this "argument" up to him (word for word) he just looked at me quizzically and said something along the lines of "What?!" and just started laughing.  I asked him what the funny part was and he said it was the joke I told.  I replied that it was not, in fact, a joke.  He responded to that with another bout of laughter and asked me to show him.  I did so, and he basically said "don't bother.".  I asked him why not, and he said that "anyone who would say that doesn't know enough about the issue to bother with".  He said it better (and with a tad more authority) than I could have, which is why I quote him here. 

Keep in mind, before judging him as a Bush lover or justifier or something (which I have no doubt that some of you will) that he has no love for Bush or Republicans in general.  At all.

Taking some of his further advise, I won't even bother with further rebuttal, it would be a waste of time. 

posted on September 9th, 2007, 9:51 pm

I can't be sure how to respond to this, because I do not want to start a flame war.  I would refer to one of the Doc's posts on how to be a good debater however. RedShirt I am very disheartened though that you would choose to say something like this.

[ewm90]

posted on September 9th, 2007, 9:59 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on September 9th, 2007, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We will probably never know the real number some body's will never be found some data from the grown is probably incorrect and political influence will fugued the numbers.

I am not totally clear on what debate you are referring to. please clarify my reading skill is not as good as I would like.

I am still trying to get the full understating of your point.

Ewm's point about the war and blame seems valid to me (of course you will say he would say this)... as I have indeed pondered about this... Bush can wash his hands of almost all the blame for the current war as a) if the US does pull out AFTER he leaves office and there is no success, the republicants can say "I told you so; you shoulda stayed the course" and b) if the US stays in and fails bush-supporters can just state that "we did not follow the proper action by throwing more money and troops into Iraq", or "circumstances changed". Take it or leave it... this is my opinion, but also based on what happened during the Korean and Vietnam war (do I have to provide evidence....?).

Well, I was over at a friend's house for the weekend.  Keep in mind who this friend is; he is not a democrat, although his views are almost entirely liberal. 

He is also willing to change his opinion based on the facts.  He's even changed his opinion on the war a couple times as facts and evidence emerges.  For instance, when the report that 260,000 people have been killed in Iraq came out, he gave me heck over it in our debates.  I responded that it was probably faked and that he should just wait and see.  When it turned out that it was faked, he, not me, brought it up and admitted that I was right, despite his views toward it previously.  He is quite a thinker.

When I brought this "argument" up to him (word for word) he just looked at me quizzically and said something along the lines of "What?!" and just started laughing.  I asked him what the funny part was and he said it was the joke I told.  I replied that it was not, in fact, a joke.  He responded to that with another bout of laughter and asked me to show him.  I did so, and he basically said "don't bother.".  I asked him why not, and he said that "anyone who would say that doesn't know enough about the issue to bother with".  He said it better (and with a tad more authority) than I could have, which is why I quote him here. 

Keep in mind, before judging him as a Bush lover or justifier or something (which I have no doubt that some of you will) that he has no love for Bush or Republicans in general.  At all.

Taking some of his further advise, I won't even bother with further rebuttal, it would be a waste of time. 

Just state what you think as long as you post it in a non confrontational way you are ok. You can control others all you can do is make sheer you are ok. If they chose to start a fite thats up to them and you are not responsible for their actions.

I can't be sure how to respond to this, because I do not want to start a flame war.  Sad I would refer to one of the Doc's posts on how to be a good debater however. RedShirt I am very disheartened though that you would choose to say something like this.