Oh, you surely will not object to the fact that the US military refrained from attacking certain key targets such as air defense networks and C3 networks, because they knew that Russian "advisors" were in place, where the killing of which might have lead to an escalation of the conflict beyond South-East Asia? And you surely will not object, that, because of that reality, Washington put strong limits on what the military could do and not do, thus crippling any sound military campaign against what would otherwise be a "military" that mostly lived on tactics build in the early AD centuries, or living from shooting form the trees and pitholes.
And you surely cannot object to the fact, that because of the prolongment of the conflict, which was brought about by exactly those POLITICAL limits in the face of potential nuclear escalation against the supportive nation which was the Soviet Untion, and whithin which those unhealthy limits were put on the US military which resulted in a lot of deaths of US soldiers, was the REASON of why the people of the US could no longer accept the war and pushed their politicians to get out of it.

Back then, they pulled out because they could not run an effective campaign without risking nuclear war. They ran a political - not a military - campaign, and that is what caused the high number of losses for them. And that again was why their people demanded them to pull out (well, in fact they made a peace treaty, but as soon as they were out, the North Vietnamese burned that piece of paper and went into South Vietnam). And that is why they lost.

Now, these days, we do not face the nuclear threat right now, which would stop us from fighting in an effective and earnest way against those stone-age minded ****ers. These days, all that stops us is pussies like those who are posting here every ****ing day, who deem themselves as superior intellectual beings by putting forward a bunch of "I'm so smart, if the world was me, there would only be peace" dumb****, who sabotage their own civilization in the fight against radical, uneducated and hatefull barbarians. Oh, and the radicals being radicals is not our fault, btw. Them being hatefull, racist, uneducated barbarians is their own choice. It's what their leaders build their power on. They have to change their leaders, and they have to change their idea of politics and of the individual. But it is NEVER OUR fault when they drive ****ing airplanes into OUR HOMES. THEY ALONE have to take the responsiblity of their stupid barbarism. And indeed they DO. They are ****ing PROUD of it. That is NOT our fault or problem. It is THEIRS.
All WE have to deal with is securing our safety by destroying their hostile leaders and systems if they cannot stop it themselves.

Many people nowadays in the West have high respect for those underdeveloped countries, run by dictators through fear and hatred. Well, that might seem great, in a way, because it shows how far we have come in terms of tollerance, intellectual freedom and analysis. But I think we make a mistake when in the process of granting respect to THEM, we give up all respect for OURSELVES, and what the grandfathers of at least SOME of us FOUGHT FOR.
If we start deeming ourselves as so SMART from the comfortable fireplace in our living room - which is not the battlefield we send our soldiers on to fight on, btw - and deem radical and barbaric murderers as "victims" of ourselves, then we are comitting what is nothing other than collective suicide and we in fact no longer DESERVE to exist against those ****ING BARBARIANS who got stuck in some pre-medival mindset.
Let them have us, if YOU are more busy with defending and rationalizing their SICK WAYS, instead of RALLYING for us and OUR SOLDIERS.
**** your defeatism. **** it.

Be aware that your enemy KNOWS NO DEFEATISM. And he really doesn't need a foreign propaganda ministry, or foreign agitators, because he knows that there are enough people in our own lines which take care of that.

:salute:

absolutely right

I have had it with the white house we have seen so far this year.

they can, will and HAVE sold us all up the river:nope:

And still you miss it , its Asia so the Russain were a little side note , the amount of russian advisors was miniscule compared to the chinese presence . After the screw up in Korea America had learnt to not risk pissing the Chinese off too much .
Vietnm was a prime example of a country not following its own advice and fighting a stupid needless war for all the wrong reasons when they already knew it was futile , but hey if you want to blame the russians and the hippies for the American failure all you are doing is showing you have a very low level of understanding concerning that conflict .

isn't that a quote from Lord Haw Haw in one of his last drunken rants from Berlin ?

Tribesman -Since you are unable or unwilling to comprehend what a brokered ceasefire is - its a waste of time to even discuss the middle east situation with you. They say ignorance is bliss - at least I am pleased to see your a happy man.

Heatc - your entirely correct in that the both the korean and vietnam conflict were politically waged. This is further demonstrated when "high value" targets were finally allowed to be hit. When we did hit those high value targets - it brought the vietnamese to the bargaining table. When we called off the strikes - they refused to discuss peace.

Ultimately to win a war - you do have to have the mindset of them or us. War may be started by politicians - but its won by the military. Sun Tzu said it best when he stated that a faithful and able general are the sideguard of the nation.

Politicians do not know how to wage war - yet they insist on trying to run it anyway.

OK, so basically when asked "If the US was winning in Afghanistan" instead of answering "no" with the implication, not without adopting the petreaus strategy, he should instead have said "we are achieving a sub-optimal level of success"

With regard to haplo's statements, while clearly written and debate-worthy if i was inclined to get into debates on this forum, this surely is in the category of argument that comes under the heading "why the petreaus strategy is less likely to succeed in Afghanistan", rather than the category "how obama bitch-slapped dead americans"

you'll be interested to know that the afghan opposition also doubts the applicablity of the petreaus plan to afghanistan, pointing out that a key event at the time in iraq was the emergence of al-maliki, a strong and effective leader able to reach out across many of the factions as well as do business with the occupier, whereas Karzai is at the end of his political cycle with very low credibility and little leverage left. Yet for the americans to simply fire him, wouldn't do much for the loya jirga's credibility within the country as a whole.

@heartc et les autres

maybe we can relive the vietnam war, and transmogrify it into a conservative victory, in another thread?

So are you are finding it impossible to find a joint agreement then ?
Not surprising really since it was a unilateral declaration .:yep:
Hold on maybe you are on to something ...a broker , thats like a gobetween isn't it, someone that goes between two parties and gets them both to agree with something right .
Yet there was no resulting ageement between two parties just a declaration by one , so that attempted brokering didn't result in an agreement it resulted in a UNILATERAL DECLARATION .
Still maybe you learnt something else as you are clearly having real difficulty understanding something that simple , like perhaps you learnt what were the conditions set out in the unilateral declaration ?
Oh sorry you said there were no conditions didn't you :rotfl:

Apparently Obama is intending to move ahead with this plan:

He's making a big mistake.

http://ourvoice.legion.org/story/144...ill-our-heroes