M.Dancer Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 So because it was fought in a jungle, it's not a conventional war? Nice excuse. You should try reading up on the Vietnam war before you make such retarded assertions. No because it was fought with irregulars who were peaseants by day and guerillas by night, because it was an insurgency....because the goals of the SV and the US were not the invasion of North Vietnam and a dozen other reasons........that was why it was not a conventional war ....you should try taking your own advice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Nazi Germany had the finest military in the world. Bar none.------------------------------------------------------ Be sincere; be brief; be seated. ---President Franklin D. Roosevelt OOOOhh Nazi German admiration - not surprised after all anglo saxon does mean germanic dane. The German army were trols - robots - and army has to have spirit and soul - when our men say in the British Airforce were flying their paper thin planes over Berlin and bombing these pests out of existance they had one edge that the "bar none" Germans clone soldiers did NOT have - it was spirit - soul! You forget why the Germans were beaten - they were driven and functioning on occultism - the empty lying religion - where as we had Christian doctrine to pull us though - quote "There is no love greater than that of a man who is willing to lay his life down for a friend" - Do you think Haunz or Manfred with there Volkswagen helmets on even considered dying to say their fellows life? Not likely - the Germans were NOT the greatest or "finest military" in the world - if they were - THEY WOULD HAVE WON. Donald Rumsfelt - fashioned the invasion of Iraq directly after German operations directly out of world war 2 - he was a big fan of Hitler also - apparently it did not work did it? Bach on topic..I heard dearst Bush comment about the pesky Iranian water bugs bothering the America navy..what the hell - he acted as if it was a big deal - something worth while that might just generate a few more bucks at the end of his tenure to further enrich his buddies that run the miltary industrial parasitic machine...his reaction was akin to saying "we were out in the canoe and their were water bugs every where - we need to buy a thousand more 50 cal. machine guns and get those nasty little kritters - for God's sake - this is NOT the Persian empire of 500 years ago - look at their leader - the twint is a clone of Bush himself - with the same IQ - ironic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sorry, where's this "knife fight nonsense coming from? I never said anything about a knife fight. But whatever the case, Vietnam is a perfect example of the Americans not being able to win a war in a straight up combat situation--even though they did have the advantage in terms of air superiority. I really don't think you're in a position to be giving me "news flash[es]" on this topic. Name one battle the US lost.... We have tried to explain why you are out to lunch but I'm afraid it won't sink in..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 North Viet-nam was never invaded. North Viet-nam, however, invaded the South in 1972 (Year of the Rat...remember?). Time to read up a wee bit more on this period of history before continuing on with this discussion...me thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War ----------------------------------------- Once upon a time our traditional goal in war and can anyone doubt that we are at war? - was victory. Once upon a time we were proud of our strength, our military power. Now we seem ashamed of it. Once upon a time the rest of the world looked to us for leadership. Now they look to us for a quick handout and a fence-straddling international posture. ---Barry Goldwater I love it how keng so helpfully digs a hole for himself every time he pretends to know what he is talking about.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'd say that Germany, France, Great Britain, maybe even Poland could easily have taken down Iraq. Like I said earlier....you haven't a clue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 OOOOhh Nazi German admiration - not surprised after all anglo saxon does mean germanic dane. The German army were trols - robots - and army has to have spirit and soul - when our men say in the British Airforce were flying their paper thin planes over Berlin and bombing these pests out of existance they had one edge that the "bar none" Germans clone soldiers did NOT have - it was spirit - soul! You forget why the Germans were beaten - they were driven and functioning on occultism - the empty lying religion - where as we had Christian doctrine to pull us though - quote "There is no love greater than that of a man who is willing to lay his life down for a friend" - Do you think Haunz or Manfred with there Volkswagen helmets on even considered dying to say their fellows life? Not likely - the Germans were NOT the greatest or "finest military" in the world - if they were - THEY WOULD HAVE WON. 1. From a military point of view, the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and the Waffen-SS were highly motivated, well led and well equiped. The Waffen-SS was an all volunteer force. The rest were a mix of both conscripts and volunteers. Better than any other military at the time. This is merely a fact. Keep your revisionism out of this, please. 2. Both my father and his brothers flew with Bomber Command during WW2 and after. My father was too young to see any missions other than training...but the rest were over Germany bombing away merrily. My family is Canadian of German heritage, of course. 3. One of my uncles (non-Canadian branch) served in the Waffen-SS in Yugoslavia. One of my aunts is a famous Holocaust survivor. Believe it or not.... 4. Most of what you say I ignore. ------------------------------------------------------------- Lots of ladies I salute, but one old dame was rather cute. She wanted to see my parachute, while guarding the home guards home. ---George Formby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Name one battle the US lost....We have tried to explain why you are out to lunch but I'm afraid it won't sink in..... If it were not for the 20 million dead Red Army soldiers that beat back the Nazis there would be one primary battle that the US would have lost ------------------------world war two! And by the way war is NOT an adventure. Both of my parents endured the fire storm and watch Europe collapse - both were riddled with bullit marks - both were half starved - the report that I got back as a kid was that war was NOT fun - grow up guys ... This "war on terror" is not a war - a war is where two sides square off and fight to the death - When someone gets blown up by a road side bomb - he is not a hero that died in a "fire fight" He is a thing called road kill - these are not heros they are victims. Having said that - what I see here is not a war but sport by the merchant class trying to appear as noble knights of old and attempting to be aristocrats - well it's pathetic - Bush junior is not the gallant airman that his dad was - but he is the cut throat opportunist that his grandfather was - a coward that generated money selling arms to the Nazis - and ironically that blood money was used to install not one but two presidents. That's like a man killing thousands of his own country men and turning a profit and then placing himself on a throne and declaring the he is a benevolent king protector - what a fraud. It's all about money - killing for money is not nice...or very sophisticated..it's base and less than primative. As far as the Persians are concerned - it seems that George W Bosh..or Bush - has met his nemisis in the Iranian dictator - the up side is that these two idiots will destroy each other - to bad we can't just put both of them in a cage and let them have a knife fight to the death - butter knives would make it interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 M. Dancer: I love it how keng so helpfully digs a hole for himself every time he pretends to know what he is talking about.... That one made me sit up and notice...lol. ---------------------------------------------- I love the smell of napalm in the morning... ---Lt Col Kilgore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I have better things to do than associate with (or wish to be a) subpar-IQed state-sanctioned killer. This statement alone speaks volumes as to your ignorance pertaining to the military Kengs. Obviously you have limited experience with military personnel. If the case were otherwise you'd realize that "subpar IQed" people are not exactly what the military looks for. Further your glib statement about "state sanctioned killer" serves only to further illuminate your ignorance. So, back to your need or desire to insult those who can do what you are unable to even envision doing. You can dance around all you want but from your statements it's obvious you harbour a fair amount of hostility towards those who choose to serve. Why is this? Usually a hostile attitude towards a group is prevaricated upon some grudge or envy. So what is it Kengs? A grudge? Or is it just simple envy and jealousy? Perhaps it's merely another manifestation of your hatred towards any who are not just like you in your pious self proclaimed "faith". If you're an example of what a good Christian is then I thank your mythical leader that I chose a different path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 No because it was fought with irregulars who were peaseants by day and guerillas by night, because it was an insurgency....because the goals of the SV and the US were not the invasion of North Vietnam and a dozen other reasons........that was why it was not a conventional war....you should try taking your own advice Funny, I don't see anything in the definition of "conventional war" that suggests "invasion of..." is a necessary component. If you care to actually read something about the Vietnam war you'd learn that there was something called the NVA. Yes, there was some fighting against irregulars, but that often was not the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 One can only take so much insanity. ~ignored~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) North Viet-nam was never invaded. North Viet-nam, however, invaded the South in 1972 (Year of the Rat...remember?). Time to read up a wee bit more on this period of history before continuing on with this discussion...me thinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War I'm talking Vietnam in general. What else would you call what they did there? Edited January 9, 2008 by kengs333 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Name one battle the US lost....We have tried to explain why you are out to lunch but I'm afraid it won't sink in..... Before I commence with that, remind me who won the war, again...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Like I said earlier....you haven't a clue Neither do you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 One can only take so much insanity.~ignored~ The haughty British eilte sent Canadians first to melt down the barrels of machine guns...the colonialist were inferiours...in Vietnam - they sent the blacks first as cannon fodder...do you ever wonder why cannon folder stays delluded and loyal to those that don't give a damn if you live or die? Those that play the cannon fodder game are usally dysfuctionals in every way - Kissenger said - "Power is the ulimate aphrodisiac" - translated would be - bomb a village - or send men to die so you can achieve an errection for the wife that does not love you - pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 The haughty British eilte sent Canadians first to melt down the barrels of machine guns...the colonialist were inferiours...in Vietnam - they sent the blacks first as cannon fodder...do you ever wonder why cannon folder stays delluded and loyal to those that don't give a damn if you live or die? Those that play the cannon fodder game are usally dysfuctionals in every way - Kissenger said - "Power is the ulimate aphrodisiac" - translated would be - bomb a village - or send men to die so you can achieve an errection for the wife that does not love you - pathetic. Oh come on. Is this the standard posting that MLW wants to have? How are we going to attract good posters when this is what passes for the level of 'debate' around here? It has gotten much worse the last 6 months. The lunatics are running the asylem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Oh come on. Is this the standard posting that MLW wants to have? How are we going to attract good posters when this is what passes for the level of 'debate' around here? It has gotten much worse the last 6 months.The lunatics are running the asylem. He you put up with Harper being a lunitics lap dog! You did not protest or even notice that Bush had the intelligence of a gas station attendent...so why pick on me - so I like to hear myself type - besides - debate is for school boys - how about some brave statesmenship from you lazy guys - argument with out resolution is what has ruined the world - why not speak you mind? See you guys latter - and have fun pretending the world is high school - glad I dropped you - hate to be smart like you..always contentious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) This statement alone speaks volumes as to your ignorance pertaining to the military Kengs. Obviously you have limited experience with military personnel. If the case were otherwise you'd realize that "subpar IQed" people are not exactly what the military looks for. Further your glib statement about "state sanctioned killer" serves only to further illuminate your ignorance. Oh, you're not going to try to convince me that people enter the military to do good, to help people, are you? People have tried that silly argument on me before and it just doesn't work. We all know why the military exists, we all know why they are trained to use weapons. People who enter the military are trained to do what otherwise is deemed criminal, therefore that makes them "state sanctioned killers". So, back to your need or desire to insult those who can do what you are unable to even envision doing. You can dance around all you want but from your statements it's obvious you harbour a fair amount of hostility towards those who choose to serve. Why is this? Usually a hostile attitude towards a group is prevaricated upon some grudge or envy. So what is it Kengs? A grudge? Or is it just simple envy and jealousy? There's no "need or desire" on my part to insult, it's a simple statement of the truth. Why would I be motivated by "envy and jealousy"? Basically I disagree with the use of violence and murder to achieve an objective, to enforce the designs of a state on its own people of those of a foreign country. I suppose one could argue that your "need or desire" to trivialize a person's convictions with grade-school playground taunts is itself indicative of certain deficiencies. Need this be the case? Care to discuss the issue in a mature and reasoned manner? Perhaps it's merely another manifestation of your hatred towards any who are not just like you in your pious self proclaimed "faith". If you're an example of what a good Christian is then I thank your mythical leader that I chose a different path. Well Jesus preached non-violence, so I'm not sure being critical of people who are trained and employed by a state to kill can really be considered "hatred". Still waiting for an answer to the following: Maybe you'd like to find me a video where the enemy is actually visible, or where there is indisputable evidence that incoming fire is actually directed towards Canadian soldiers. I've watched many, many videos, but all I've seen is Canadians shooting, or what sounds to be enemy fire. Like I said, it's possible that they could be staged--I never said that they were--because the videos were being produced for a specific purpose. Edited January 9, 2008 by kengs333 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Before I commence with that, remind me who won the war, again...? The Americans did. The peace treaty was signed in Paris in 1973 and was negotiated by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. The result of the treaty was the end of the war and insurgency and respect for the 1954 treaty which had been the Ameican goal from the start. Would you like a bigger shovel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'm talking Vietnam in general. What else would you call what they did there? You really do need a bigger shovel..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Sorry, where's this "knife fight nonsense coming from? I never said anything about a knife fight. But whatever the case, Vietnam is a perfect example of the Americans not being able to win a war in a straight up combat situation--even though they did have the advantage in terms of air superiority. I really don't think you're in a position to be giving me "news flash[es]" on this topic. Vietnam was not a straight up combat situation as others have pointed out to you. For political reasons American troops were not allowed to cross the northern border, the North Vietnamese army did what it wanted. Even though the Americans couldn't win with those restrictions there was no way the North could win as long as the Americans stayed. The US even took a four year break from bombing the North in hopes of coming to a resolution but all the North did was use the respite to build up their forces. It wasn't until they resumed bombing in 72 that the North was forced back to the bargaining table and a treaty was signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Oh, you're not going to try to convince me that people enter the military to do good, to help people, are you? People have tried that silly argument on me before and it just doesn't work. So now you know what motivates people to enter the service! You really are amazing, never for a single second would I in my humble "subpar IQed" way even pretend to know what motivates all members of a 65,000 plus member group. yep, you're right, all of the military members joined so they could, as Arlo Guthrie said, keel keel keel. Your use of specious arguments does nothing to conceal the fact that you pontificate from a basis of abysmal ignorance. There is an old pearl of wisdom that you would be wise to ponder, it goes like this, "it is better to remain silent and be thought stupid than it is to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I'm talking Vietnam in general. What else would you call what they did there? Ummm...South Viet-Nam was a real country with real people living in it. Saigon was once called the Paris of the Orient. The new government in Saigon wanted US military assistance vs the Communists who were attacking the South via the Ho Chi Mihn Trail (located in neutral Laos and Cambodia). The first US advisor arrived in 1959. I'd really suggest you read more before spouting off. Perhaps "The 10,000 Day War" by Michael MacLear to start with and then get into more detailed reading after that. You seem to be too young to recall that French Indochina was partitioned after the French left into two countries. I'm not. Oleg Bach: The haughty British eilte sent Canadians first to melt down the barrels of machine guns... You're view of history reminds me that you can never place too much value on a good education. --------------------------------------------------------- Although war is evil, it is occasionally the lesser of two evils. ---McGeorge Bundy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 kengs333: Maybe you'd like to find me a video where the enemy is actually visible, or where there is indisputable evidence that incoming fire is actually directed towards Canadian soldiers. I've watched many, many videos, but all I've seen is Canadians shooting, or what sounds to be enemy fire. Like I said, it's possible that they could be staged--I never said that they were--because the videos were being produced for a specific purpose. We tend not to publish films like that. However, if you hop over to this website, you'll find plenty of action videos from the Taliban and al-Qaeda that show plenty of death and killing right up close. http://inhonor.net/videos.php (caution though...real stuff) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q. Why did Osama fire Martha Stewart? A. She was unable to find fabric that went with stalagmites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 We tend not to publish films like that. However, if you hop over to this website, you'll find plenty of action videos from the Taliban and al-Qaeda that show plenty of death and killing right up close.http://inhonor.net/videos.php (caution though...real stuff) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q. Why did Osama fire Martha Stewart? A. She was unable to find fabric that went with stalagmites. "Death and killing up close" - boy let me get the lubricant..what's with this need to "find plenty of action" - watching people get harmed or killed and getting a charge out of it is sick...not that I read the post - just the tail end of it - but that's enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.