| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
<Pugsley> hey FT.. check this out http://www.livescience.com/technology/050913_military_vehicle.html
<FreeTrade> Our rules of engagement were idiotic
<SweetLeaf> But then again neither did Korea
<KoBushi> as a*
<Hangfire> KoBushi heh
<StafferX> I just don't buy that if we had thrown every last resource we had into Vietnam, we would have been guaranteed victory - our forces in Vietnam were attritting the hell out of the enemy. They had a BOTTOMLESS POOL of manpower.
<Hangfire> a war of attrition?
<Hangfire> GOOD GOD
<US_Male> no, there's no bottomless pool
<Hangfire> what the **** do you know about fighting a war?
<FreeTrade> Kobushi our intent was to prevent north vietnam from taking south vietnam. We shouldnt of been there. but once the democrats decided to go to war, we should of FOUGHT a war instead of playing stupid political games in america
<Hangfire> jesus christ you are SUCH an armchair general it's horrific
<StafferX> Half the casualties in Vietnam were caused by booby traps.
<Hangfire> a WAR OF ATTRITION?
<FreeTrade> Americas government was totally ****ed up
<Hangfire> WHAT THE HELL?
<US_Male> we just didn't do it properly -- not comitted enough, too much cluster****ing
<Pugsley> hey FT did u check that link
<FreeTrade> the only person who showed any sense in vietnam in the conflict was Nixon
<StafferX> Hangfire, I didn't say it was a war of attrition. I said our forces were attritting the enemy. Chill. Chiiiilll..
<KoBushi> anyway, I shouldn't have brought up Vietnam
<FreeTrade> we almost broke their back until he stepped down from office.
<Pugsley> FT: that's why he had to be destroyed
<Pugsley> :)
<US_Male> we needed to be committed on a national level
<Hangfire> StafferX AND? that's a good thing?
<Pugsley> FT: http://www.livescience.com/technology/050913_military_vehicle.html
<KoBushi> my point was only that more troops initially in Iraq could only have helped, not hurt.
<Hangfire> attrition happens on BOTH sides
<FreeTrade> this according to the still living commanders of vietnam forces
<StafferX> Sure. I don't see what you're getting at, and I don't think you're reading me very carefully.
<Hangfire> I do read what you're saying
<Hangfire> you're saying the attrition worked in your favour
<FreeTrade> Damn thats a cool truck Puglsey... I like it.
<FreeTrade> its like the bat mobile.
<Hangfire> what you're forgetting is that the troops were fighting a war with no fixed objectives
<Hangfire> attrition means **** all
<Hangfire> so you bomb the hell out of zone X
<Hangfire> and?
<US_Male> we had too much internal politics involved in Vietnam
<Hangfire> some NVA or VC died nothing was achieved
<FreeTrade> Hangfire, Bingo
<US_Male> and waited wayyy too long to go for it all teh way
<Pugsley> yeah. designed to seat the troops away from the wheels and what not.. very kewl stuff
<FreeTrade> No fixed objectives.
<FreeTrade> Absolutely right.
<StafferX> Correct. You can use overwhelming force here and there and it won't guarantee victory. Yes. This is what I'm saying.
<StafferX> The amount of force we used was not the critical factor.
<Hangfire> and so a war of attrition will not just affect THEIR troops it *WILL* affect your troops
<Hangfire> it becomes mindless death
<FreeTrade> Hangfire, Also true.
<FreeTrade> I agree.
<Hangfire> you MAY kill 200 of their troops
<StafferX> Okay, once again I'm going to point out that I never said it was a war of attrition. I should have used the word 'killded' and maybe you wouldn't have blown a gasket.
<Hangfire> but they WILL maim 20 of your troops
<StafferX> Let's see if this sticks.
<FreeTrade> Wears both sides down and then its a mere issue of staying power and that advantage always falls to the person defending his own country or region.
<Hangfire> "killded"?
<Hangfire> oh god
<StafferX> Sarcasm, hangfire. Stay calm.
<Hangfire> look the major **** up the US did was not use a hard core of commited troops
<US_Male> lol
<Hangfire> the fact of the matter is 1) NVA/VC tactic decimateed american ability of fighting the war with overwhelming firepower and 2) sending in a bunch of conscripts who didn't want to be there in the first ****ing place
<JanetB> well I think the mess up was political.. and the same thing is going to happen in Iraq, this the dems get their way
<StafferX> Hangfire, are you saying there was a hard core of committed troops somewhere that we failed to transport to Vietnam, or are you saying that there were too many troops there who didn't want to be there?
<FreeTrade> America had committed troops in the beggining, but immediately we ****ed up by the rules of engagement which said we could not pursue the enemy into laos
<FreeTrade> a mere border..
<US_Male> Hangfire, that plus the political support back home didn't make that happen
<FreeTrade> Not 2 miles over the border
<Hangfire> morale was rock bottom for 90% of those kids and then being stuck there worrying about insurgency warfare made the other 10% lose heart because they had to worry about 90% of their backup being **** ups
<KoBushi> my sister got a 158 on her LSAT
<US_Male> h's right we didn't implement a hard core agenda and finish the job
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
chatzone
|
|