U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-07-2009, 04:30 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,532 posts, read 10,332,462 times
Reputation: 1538
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles
Quote:
Vietnam was a war fought primarily on the squad, platoon, and company level, with extensive use of fire support assets. Obviously you have no idea of anything in regards to the Vietnam War.
Obviously you have no concept of what unconventional warfare is.
The VC dominated the US troops because they forced them to fight like them, which eliminated the advantage their high-tech toys would have given them.

Quote:
The utilization of aerial assets has nothing to do with the nature of the war.
It has everything to do with the nature of war.
See WWI.

Or are ya so ignorant that ya deny the fact that technology greatly influences warfare.

Quote:
However, were it not for superior American firepower, the losses in the war would probably have been double or triple what they wound up being. Prompt and overwhelming fire support saved many American lives.
And yet the US still lost the war.

Quote:
Although for you to attempt to cheapen their sacrifice by saying that they lost the war because they were somehow inadequate or unfit not only reveals your ignorance it reveals your open contempt for America's veterans.
Ya truly must be ignorant since I quote American Vietnam veterans themselves (my source the VVAW* are American Vietnam veterans).
I trust veterans over gun fetishists like yourself, simply because they talk from experience and not blind patriotism (aka ideology).

Quote:
I have to conclude you're a troll.
And I can only conclude that your ignorance makes your post irrelevant.
But I only encourage everyone to post his opinion.

Quote:
*Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Inc. (VVAW) is a national veterans' organization that was founded in New York City in 1967 after six Vietnam vets marched together in a peace demonstration. It was organized to voice the growing opposition among returning servicemen and women to the still-raging war in Indochina, and grew rapidly to a membership of over 30,000 throughout the United States as well as active duty GIs stationed in Vietnam. Through ongoing actions and grassroots organization, VVAW exposed the ugly truth about US involvement in Southeast Asia and our first-hand experiences helped many other Americans to see the unjust nature of that war.
Source: Vietnam Veterans Against the War: VVAW: Where We Came From, Who We Are

 
Old 03-07-2009, 05:39 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,227 posts, read 4,898,416 times
Reputation: 2475
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
We will wait. Not worth the interference in our local law. Too bad Utah. It didn't work out this year.

Yep, therein lies the heart of the problem. A total lack of accountability for the lives your city has had a hand in destroying. In time your laws will be reeled in & brought to compliance. Your cesspool will serve as an example of what America will not allow. Its simple really, we are a nation & the rights of the people in that nation are not subject to the will of a few idiots.
Especially idiots in a city that re elect a convicted drug addict. If that doesn't expose your lack of judgement nothing else will.

But at the end of the day you will lose simply because you are wrong, your position is intennable & the law says what you are doing is illegal.

Thems the facts Gomer
 
Old 03-07-2009, 05:46 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,227 posts, read 4,898,416 times
Reputation: 2475
TD said,
Quote:
I trust veterans over gun fetishists like yourself, simply because they talk from experience and not blind patriotism (aka ideology).
Thats funny coming from you. What exactly to you personally know about gun rights or civilian gun ownership? You trust a couple vets but cant trust other experienced folks who are living the life you think you are qualified to lecture on? Your every opinion is conjecture & hearsay. The funniest part of all is you take yourself seriously.
By the way, Vietnam has nothing to do with this topic.
 
Old 03-07-2009, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,714,514 times
Reputation: 3625
Thumbs up The morning's "tome". Sorry, but (s)he prompts a rely...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Obviously they didn't fight it the same way they fought Japan or else they would occupied North Vietnam with conventional forces!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

You're one of the most arrogant and ignorant people on this forum. You think you know enough to meaningfully speak about the history of countless nations, how life in America is, etc, but you don't.

You're a know-nothing know-it-all.
What... I think I know who you guys are talking to!

Ohio, I believe you said it all, that Vietnam was, indeed, a political war, though that, of course, is at the root of ALL wars, wouldn't you say? and I suspect your debating adversary (and a worthy one (s)he may well be) has claimed some higher plane of knowledge, yes?

I almost got there. As a member of the euphemisticall named Canuck Army "Long Range Shooting Team" (junior snipers -in-training)where we honed our skills @ 1000m with Parker-Hale accurized Lee-Enfields, iron fricking sights for gawd's sake! Some of my colleauges were eager, in their impetuous youth, to demo their fine shootin' skills all the while neutralizing "The Commie Threat".

But Johnson's policies of limited engagement, of limited bomb targets, and other silliness, prevented the near-instantaneous victory that could have been. (See: Hiroshima or Nagasaki). We were definitely NOT in 'Nam to win the war outright, in the classical sense. We wanted to publically humiliate the Chicoms and N. Viet. politicians (same thing, of course)

Many in the US knew exactly how, even absent nuclear methods, to step it up appropriately and bring it all to a close. relentless, round-the-clock bombing of specific high-value targets, for example. Specific targeting of SAM sites until they are all gone. Some good volunteer Canadian snipers! Etc etc.

Instead, what we got was typical of when politicians give the military a sorta-kinda-mandate and then, having set them loose to do their stuff, re-enter the fray and meddle it all up. "Change this, modify that, stop there, do this here..." . It all reeks of politicians' odor.

Superior firepower always wins wars. If that superiority is hobbled, then it becomes Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Barama will (temporarily) demo this for our debator perhaps, in finally sending sufficient firepower to Afghanistan. If it truly is sufficient, some sort of "end" will be achieved.

It's also to be noted that wars are actually rarely won. Even WWII; who won in fact? The US ended up funding the rebuilding of several nations, even Western Europe (incl. Holland, I'll add), and Japan and even up to now, Isreal, and what did it get us? Ignorant and global disrespect & hatred.

Well, except for Isreal, the 51st State, where we mindlessly fund them up to the continued amazement and disgust of of the much larger Arab world. Just why we do this is another deep topic, and an open critic would have then to be on the constant lookout for Blacked-Out Gov'mint GM Suburbans intent of running you off the road...

Reagan, (Ahem ahem.. All rise, place hand over heart and Salute!) one of our finest leaders for so many reasons, succeeded in trouncing the aggressive but similarly mislead Russians by over-teching them into fiscal ruin, without firing a shot. Then, sadfly, we followed our stereotypical past behavior and wasted billions in "helping democracy out of its cradle". Too bad the crooks there and here weren't better controlled with our tax dollars!

I suggest, as an alternate, we step back within ourselves, cease ANY global adventurism to inflict revenge for prior attempts on the lives of our families, or any other pitiable selfish rationales.

I'll go on record as assuring everyone that no-one in the Alliance can or will be able to permanently suppress a homeland militia, ever. The Taliban will simply exhaust our limited fiscal and military/political resolve, we'll eventually leave in disgrace, sans billions and billions.

Many here on C-D, happy to see the US humilitated in any way, will gleefully then romp about their playrooms, wilfully interrupting others' valuable sleep during "nappy time", noisily sucking on their odorous political "blankees".

I, like many here, am, yesirree, a self-declared and proud Constitutionally protective "gun nut". (Fetish? Not so much) Is there something wrong with that pride? Why take it as an insult! Consider it his/her form of unwitting jealous approval and applaud. I'm happy to be aware of and educated in the vast validity and consequences of our wonderful 2nd Amendment!

All so simple, except for your debator. If I guess just who (s)he is, is talking through its hat as usual, mindlessly speculating about nothing and everything, and troll-bating decidedly off-topic, we should take a new tack here.

Shall we get back to the basics of the OP? In the larger sense, yes, we patriotic educated "gun nuts", are correctly supportive of our military men, though not necessarily their leaders. Not because of what the men in the alleys of Baghdad carry ( minor point), but for larger political and protective rationales. To stupidly conflate citizen's gun ownership with mindlesss past or current Democrat or Republican global military or political adventurism just clarifies our debator's inherent and amazing display of a lack of true debating abilities. Or, sadly, a more heinous intent, to just irritate. The driving life-force of a dog-flea. Let's put on our (metaphorical) flea collars, folks. The fleas then drop off, dead.

Our favorite debator here truly does understand the inner protective and currently abrupt mentality of most legal, law-abiding gunowners in the US. We're tired of our moral and ethical underpinnings being assaulted and demonized by the liberal, socialist media. We are willing to die for our country if the fight is justified. Unfortunately we've also grown tired of politicians who do EVERYTHING for their personal aggrandizement. and we're openly vocal, at the least the good, thoughtful and kind folk on this thread are. The dreaded NRA is, "ditto"' hated for their potential and extant huge political clout. "Little Special Interest Group" my cute pink butt!!

Our pseudo-debator loves to pull our chains, and knows how easy it is to pull us off track, on purpose, just to see us fume. Our stupidity is in continuing to respond! Scratch, scratch scratch until our political skin bleeds!

I've made a suggestion before, an alternate, to this relentless but pointless nonsense.

Ignore, ignore ,ignore, ...negeer hem !!!

You'll feel so much better, being "flea-less"! And, as we've glimpsed from time to time in the past, such a "response" drives her nutty. Her ego deflated, stabbed, ignited and "bang", like a cow fart in a Dakota windstorm, it's gone.

And after all, remember that, always, for these types, "To Concede would be To Concede!" Oh no!
 
Old 03-07-2009, 09:17 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
6,965 posts, read 4,980,619 times
Reputation: 4535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
TD said,
Thats funny coming from you. What exactly to you personally know about gun rights or civilian gun ownership? You trust a couple vets but cant trust other experienced folks who are living the life you think you are qualified to lecture on? Your every opinion is conjecture & hearsay. The funniest part of all is you take yourself seriously.
By the way, Vietnam has nothing to do with this topic.
I wholeheartedly agree Tin. I don't understand in the least how these individuals seem to think that because someone wore the uniform at one time , or even served in a combat zone, that in and of itself that service gives "veterans" or whatever a unique set of skills and or qualifications over and above all civilian firearms owners.. Lol, basic training, even in the Army and Marine Corps does not concentrate that hard on shooting skills beyond basic marksmanship and familiarity with the issue service weapon. Individuals who display a unique skill with firearms are singled out for service in special units and are sent on to advanced training but they are the exeption, not the rule. Then we have the police, most of whom are not that proficient with their duty weapons either, beyond being able to qualify on a B27 at whatever intervals their departments require. We hear , with alarming regularity, about police "defensive shootings" where huge numbers of rounds have been fired at a suspect with few(if any) hits on the same. Makes me wonder where all the spent bullets ended up as a final resting place and how much danger these fired round placed the public at large in. In contrast civilian defensive shootings have a very low number of rounds put downrange. When a homeowner is forced to defend himself and his family, more often than not, the Goblin is killed outright with all shots accounted for in the perps body. This is a curious contrast. Certain people place their trust in a very misguided place, and then sling around terms like "fetishists" and such as if they are some kind of defensive guru with a level of training worthy of notice by the top spec4 and SWAT teams when all they have ever done is watch movies like Bowling for Columbine with rapt devotion and, no doubt, have candle lit alters to Michael Moore in their closets.. Cosidering the source of the above named opinions, ( there's that dratted buzzing again) I have to stifle racous laughter.
 
Old 03-07-2009, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,621 posts, read 6,714,514 times
Reputation: 3625
Thumbs up The morning's "tome". Sorry, but (s)he prompts a rely...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles View Post
Obviously they didn't fight it the same way they fought Japan or else they would occupied North Vietnam with conventional forces!

You have no idea what you're talking about!

You're one of the most arrogant and ignorant people on this forum. You think you know enough to meaningfully speak about the history of countless nations, how life in America is, etc, but you don't.

You're a know-nothing know-it-all.
What... I think I know who you guys are talking to! Do remember, Ohio, you're talking to someone who "Knows Best!". Such an illuminating opportunity, really! Take a seat, shush up and listen to him/her, intently, for heaven's sake!

Ohio, I believe you said it all, that Vietnam was, indeed, a political war, though that, of course, is at the root of ALL wars, wouldn't you say? And I suspect your debating adversary (and a worthy one (s)he may well be) has claimed some higher plane of knowledge, yes?

I almost got to 'Nam. to stand amongst the pansy-pants liberal draftee *****-grunts who "sprayed and prayed" their way through the jungle. As a member of the euphemistically named Canuck Army "Long Range Shooting Team" (junior snipers -in-training) where we honed our skills @ 1000m with Parker-Hale accurized Lee-Enfields (iron fricking sights for gawd's sake!). Some of my colleagues were eager, in their impetuous youth, to demo their fine shootin' skills simultaneously neutralizing "The Commie Threat". It's no wonder that the Government wants young minds-full-of-mush to train into blind obedience!

But Johnson's policies of limited engagement, of limited bomb targets, and other silliness, prevented the near-instantaneous victory that could have been. (See: Hiroshima or Nagasaki). We were definitely NOT in 'Nam to win the war outright, in the classical sense. We wanted to publically humiliate the Chicoms and N. Viet. politicians (same thing, of course).

Many in the US knew exactly how, even absent nuclear methods, to step it up appropriately and bring it all to a close. relentless, round-the-clock bombing of specific high-value targets, for example. Specific targeting of SAM sites until they are all gone. Some good volunteer Canadian snipers! Etc etc.

Instead, what we got was typical of when politicians give the military a sorta-kinda-mandate and then, having set them loose to do their stuff, re-enter the fray and meddle it all up. "Change this, modify that, stop there, do this here..." . It all reeks of politicians' odor.

Superior firepower always wins wars. That'd be why it's called SUPERIOR! If that superiority is hobbled, then it becomes Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Barama will (temporarily) demo this for our debator perhaps, in finally sending sufficient firepower to Afghanistan. If it truly is sufficient, some sort of "end" will be achieved.

It's also to be noted that wars are actually rarely won. Even WWII; who won in fact? The US ended up funding the rebuilding of several nations, even Western Europe (incl. Holland, I'll add), and Japan and even up to now, Isreal, and what did it get us? Ignorant and global disrespect & hatred.

Well, except for Isreal, the 51st State, where we mindlessly fund them up to the continued amazement and disgust of of the much larger Arab world. Just why we do this is another deep topic, and an open critic would have then to be on the constant lookout for Blacked-Out Gov'mint GM Suburbans intent of running you off the road...

Reagan, (Ahem ahem.. All rise, place hand over heart and Salute!) one of our finest leaders for so many reasons, succeeded in trouncing the aggressive but similarly mislead Russians by over-teching them into fiscal ruin, without firing a shot. Then, sadly, we followed our stereotypical past behavior and wasted billions in "helping democracy out of its cradle". Too bad the crooks there and here weren't better controlled with our tax dollars!

I suggest, as an alternate, we step back within ourselves, cease ANY global adventurism to inflict revenge for prior attempts on the lives of our families, or any other pitiable selfish rationales.

I'll go on record as assuring everyone that no-one in the Alliance can or will be able to permanently suppress a homeland militia, ever. The Taliban will simply exhaust our limited fiscal and military/political resolve, we'll eventually leave in disgrace, sans billions and billions. And the Taliban will re-emerge from their damaged but still liveable caves, and take back the peasants' hearts and minds. By force if necessary.

Many here on C-D, happy to see the US humilitated in any way, will gleefully then romp about their playrooms, wilfully interrupting others' valuable sleep during "nappy time", noisily sucking on their odorous political "blankees".

I, like many here, am, yesirree, a self-declared and proud Constitutionally protective "gun nut". (Fetish? Not so much) Is there something wrong with that pride? Why take it as an insult! Consider it his/her form of unwitting jealous approval and applaud. I'm happy to be aware of and educated in the vast validity and consequences of our wonderful 2nd Amendment!

All so simple, except for your debator. If I guess just who (s)he is, is talking through its hat as usual, mindlessly speculating about nothing and everything, and troll-bating decidedly off-topic, we should take a new tack here.

Shall we get back to the basics of the OP? In the larger sense, yes, we patriotic educated "gun nuts", are correctly supportive of our military men, though not necessarily their leaders. Not because of what the men in the alleys of Baghdad carry ( minor point), but for larger political and protective rationales. To stupidly conflate citizen's gun ownership with mindlesss past or current Democrat or Republican global military or political adventurism just clarifies our debator's inherent and amazing display of a lack of true debating abilities. Or, sadly, a more heinous intent, to just irritate. The driving life-force of a dog-flea. Let's put on our (metaphorical) flea collars, folks. The fleas then drop off, dead.

Our favorite debator here truly does understand the inner protective and currently abrupt mentality of most legal, law-abiding gunowners in the US. We're tired of our moral and ethical underpinnings being assaulted and demonized by the liberal, socialist media. We are willing to die for our country if the fight is justified. Unfortunately we've also grown tired of politicians who do EVERYTHING for their personal aggrandizement. and we're openly vocal, at the least the good, thoughtful and kind folk on this thread are. The dreaded NRA is, "ditto"' hated for their potential and extant huge political clout. "Little Special Interest Group" my cute pink butt!!

Our pseudo-debator loves to pull our chains, and knows how easy it is to pull us off track, on purpose, just to see us fume. Our stupidity is in continuing to respond! Scratch, scratch scratch until our political skin bleeds!

I've made a suggestion before, an alternate, to this relentless but pointless nonsense.

Ignore, ignore ,ignore, ...negeer hem !!!

You'll feel so much better, being "flea-less"! And, as we've glimpsed from time to time in the past, such a "response" drives her nutty. Her ego deflated, stabbed, ignited and "bang", like a cow fart in a Dakota windstorm, it's gone.

And after all, remember that, always, for these types, "To Concede would be To Concede!" Oh no!
 
Old 03-07-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 23,937,266 times
Reputation: 4808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrickyD
I trust veterans over gun fetishists like yourself, simply because they talk from experience and not blind patriotism (aka ideology).
TD: I'm glad you trust me. I'm a Veteran. Vietnam. Decorated

We fought with with no "high tech toys" - we fought with sloshing through rice paddies. Through crawling through caves. Through hand to hand combat. With blood, sweat and yes, tears. With acts of heroism that YOU cannot even imagine.

The US lost the Vietnam conflict because there was not the political will in Washington and in the US to allow the military to do what needed to be done to win the war.

Frankly, the war would have been won if Barry Goldwater had become the CIC.
 
Old 03-07-2009, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,913 posts, read 4,950,032 times
Reputation: 916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by OhioUberAlles If the US did not fight a conventional war then how can ya explain the fact that the US dropped more bombs in the Vietnam war than during the entire WWII?*
The VC fought an unconventional war and America wasn't prepared for that.
America believed they could bomb the VC into submission and history proves that this just wasn't the case.

An accurate description you have given of people who believe that superior firepower will win every war (read: gun fetishists).
The VC lost the battles in Vietnam. Their insurrection and guerrilla warfare never won in the field. What won the war was that the VC and the North were willing to take unlimited casualties to win and we were not. US forces lost just under 60 thousand, the communist lost over 1 million. We blinked, they didn't.

BTW a significant portion of the US effort was unconventional -- SEAL teams, Army and other service special forces, Navy river patrols, etc. were all unconventional, and largely effective efforts.
 
Old 03-07-2009, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
2,671 posts, read 3,729,416 times
Reputation: 2666
In 1973 the Viet Nam war was turned over to the S. Vietnamese. The N. Vietnamese violated the Peace Agreement reached in Paris. Instead of sending U.S. troops back the United States just watched while the NVA marched into Saigon and the South in 1975. That war was lost on College campuses and in the Press in the USA.

GL2
 
Old 03-07-2009, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 164,911 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunluvver2 View Post
In 1973 the Viet Nam war was turned over to the S. Vietnamese. The N. Vietnamese violated the Peace Agreement reached in Paris. Instead of sending U.S. troops back the United States just watched while the NVA marched into Saigon and the South in 1975. That war was lost on College campuses and in the Press in the USA.

GL2

If the USA had been serious about stopping communism they would have probably have avoided Vietnam and gone to help the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique, the French in Algeria, and the Rhodesians in Rhodesia, and the South Africans in Namibia and South Africa.

The South Vietnamese didn't pull their own weight in the war, ARVN was mostly worthless and they seemed to want the USA to do the work for them. The Portuguese, French, Rhodesians, and South Africans were all serious about stopping communism.

In 1970 the USA should have had troops in Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, and Namibia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top