GameBanshee Forums

Ok here goes another long post @Gruntboy.

So you don't work for the marines, that what is with al this pantless marines stuff?

Second you believe in self moderation, i personally don't when that means i can't be truthful in what i say and mean.
If i say what i do believe, i can apologise that i may have hurt or insulted the person, but however i will not apologise of what i think.

Third i guess i was putting words in your mouth.
And please forgive my words in the other thread on afghanistan.
I assumed you were part of the marines and believed in the eye for an eye principle.
Thus if innocents died in WTC they can die in Afghanistan.
Correct the Taliban did bring the war on themselves to an extent.
They did not hand over OBL.
However with the culture and traditions of the afghani people, you can just expect a "submission to US will" seen from their point of view, so quickly.
You have to discuss it with them and use the carrot and stick policy as i said in the other thread.

Now what does the independent know?
Not much, but what does CNN know that it called the operation a success?
Someone posted here that the truth is the first casualty of war.
It is.
Due to my own personal prejudices and stereotypes i will more easily believe what the independent has written then what is shown on CNN.
You on there hand will believe CNN or a differen US media than one from outside the US.
That of course is a complete guess on my part.

What was the aim of the mission - i have no clue, as i don't think the pentagon has specified that.

My statements arrogant?
You might think so and so may many otehrs. You are free to do that.

Envy the US?
That i do from the economic and social aspects of life.
But not from the political.
If they bomb in Ramadan, then i pity those americans living in muslim nations.
They will not be safe on the streets.

"So you don't work for the marines, that what is with al this pantless marines stuff?"

Its a long running joke. Ask Mr Sleep or Weasel.

If I joined the Marines I'd be breaching the UK's foreign enlistment act. If September 11th was much worse though, and it could have been, believe me, I'd be doing push ups in Paris Island right now.

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>"So you don't work for the marines, that what is with al this pantless marines stuff?"

Its a long running joke. Ask Mr Sleep or Weasel.

If I joined the Marines I'd be breaching the UK's foreign enlistment act. If September 11th was much worse though, and it could have been, believe me, I'd be doing push ups in Paris Island right now.</STRONG>

Okay you are from the UK.
And i might ask them later, have to go to class now.

You guys conveniently ignore the facts in this post.

1)Everyone has said this campaign agaisnt terrorists will continue for a long, long time. No one has specifically said Afghanistan.

2)Bombing won't kill a single person? So I guess those ground troops they are preparing for missions as we speak are totally irrelevant? You don't even mention ground troops in this post.

And about this nonsense on not fighting on a religious day? I've only ever heard of it working once. World War I, where the opposite sides stop firing (to the chagrin of the commanders) on Christmas, and sang with each other. Guess what - they were the same religion. And fighting resumed the next day.

Vietnam - the US agreed not to fight for one day, one day. If you don't know what happened then read up on your history.

US Revolutionary War - One of the most important battles was won on Christmas Eve.

If you're an American and you said 'no' you spit on our history. Attacking on a so-called 'holy' day helped us win independence. Not attacking on another so-called 'holy' day cost us lives and possibly a war. If we don't fight they'll only use it to their advantage.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>2)Bombing won't kill a single person? So I guess those ground troops they are preparing for missions as we speak are totally irrelevant? You don't even mention ground troops in this post.
</STRONG>

That's because the focus of my brief post (which I think you may be alluding to) was on the uselessness of the continued bombing as a means to acquire bin Ladan, not on *how* to successfully acquire him.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>You guys conveniently ignore the facts in this post.

1)Everyone has said this campaign agaisnt terrorists will continue for a long, long time. No one has specifically said Afghanistan.

2)Bombing won't kill a single person? So I guess those ground troops they are preparing for missions as we speak are totally irrelevant? You don't even mention ground troops in this post.

And about this nonsense on not fighting on a religious day? I've only ever heard of it working once. World War I, where the opposite sides stop firing (to the chagrin of the commanders) on Christmas, and sang with each other. Guess what - they were the same religion. And fighting resumed the next day.

Vietnam - the US agreed not to fight for one day, one day. If you don't know what happened then read up on your history.

US Revolutionary War - One of the most important battles was won on Christmas Eve.

If you're an American and you said 'no' you spit on our history. Attacking on a so-called 'holy' day helped us win independence. Not attacking on another so-called 'holy' day cost us lives and possibly a war. If we don't fight they'll only use it to their advantage.</STRONG>

Nonsense about not fighting on a religious holiday?
Let see if the US does fight.
If it does just pray that no americans get killed in the muslim nations.
Also this is my post - what facts am i missing??

Nobody said afghanistan but where is the US attacking?
De facto they are attacking Afghanistan.
You see that on tv every day.

Like i said to some one else:
During the Iran Iraq war the first 4 years there was no fighting during Ramadan.
Look at the old Afghanistan threads for more info on this.

Do you not want to respond to the vietnam war, revolutionary war part because you have no response?

Or did you just feel like only reading half the post?

You ignore the facts of history, the fact that this is a war against terrorism, Afghanistan only holds the first target, the fact that ground troops are being sent.

Quark i don't want to detract from the subject.
Vietnam was a lost cause for the US, as they did not have the support of the people.
And where forced to leave.
What does that have to do with Afghanistan?

As for christmas, well i don't think that was right either.
You should not fight on religious holidays.

Arab Nations attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, there was a world out cry on the war but also when it was started, a religious holiday.
And it insulted and inflamed the jewish people, due to the violation of the religious holiday, and the arab nations got their collective butts kicked.

The fact that the Israelis beat the Arab nations had no corralation to the day the Arabs attacked. The Israelis are simply better at fighting wars. If they weren't, they'd have been dead a long time ago.

The fact that the US ceased hostilities for one day in Vietnam may very well have lost the war. Do you know how much ground was lost in one day? One day 'holy' to the opposing side where we respected their 'wishes' so they could tear us apart?

Agree to stop the bombing for one day? Maybe. Agree to stop the war during Ramadan? Absurd if you ask me.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>The fact that the US ceased hostilities for one day in Vietnam may very well have lost the war.</STRONG>

Come now. Wherever did you find this? There were many reasons America lost the Vietnam War, most notably:

1) We were forced to fight a war on a terrain not of a choosing, in a combat style that automatically negated our strengths (technology, supplies, logistical support), and would easily have lasted several decades or longer when fought on these terms. Historically, guerilla wars fought in tropical and semi-tropical climates have continued for more than a century, and usually resulted in the invader withdrawing.

2) This leads to the second point: an endless war draining youth is not an option in an elective democracy. No cause is ever so great that it can hold the public's heart against the constant loss of its children, year after year. Of course, this is only one point, but then you have to consider...

3) Meanwhile, the news images and reports on television showed a grimy, ghastly, vicious war, with terrible atrocities committed on both sides. This was not a face of war the US had seen for one hundred years, and it shocked the hell out of people.

4) It became apparent over time that we were defending an extremely corrupt and sleazy regime of thieves and bullies, while Ho's forces had the virtues of first generation puritanistic zealots, everywhere and at all times: poverty, energy, and honesty.

5) Ho Chih Minh applied to be *our* client after WWII, but we turned him down when De Gaulle objected, since Ho had fought against the French occupation of his homeland. Painting Ho as a monstrous Soviet tool was eventually going to backfire in our face with the public when started thinking about the war rather than simply emoting on it.

6) Getting out of the war (in other words, losing it) was a campaign issue for Nixon's second presidential term. He and Henry Kissinger actually arranged in advance for peace talks to cease for several months while the campaign played out, killing yet more people on both sides, so that they could have a solid issue to run the reprobate on. (This is documented on the White House tapes; yet the Nobel committee *still* hasn't withdrawn Kissinger's peace prize. The man deserves prison, not awards, for his actions.)

(I am *not* arguing that many of the people who went from the US to Vietnam to fight aren't gallant heroes, who gave their best in a cause they considered just. I want to make that point, because even now there are veterans who might be reading this and still feel that the neglect shown for them after the Vietnam War was a horrible injustice. I spoke out against the war almost from the first, but I never confused it, and its politicians, with the people who were involved. The only shame is that the disgust felt of such conflicts sticks to the vets, instead of to the leaders who garner awards, write books, and parade about as public statesmen years after the events. IMO.)

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

You still won't admit how much ground was lost over the period of one single day?

The Ho Chi Min trail has a name for a reason.

Yes, many things went wrong in that war. But why should we just allow one of those very mistakes to happen again?

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>Agree to stop the bombing for one day? Maybe. Agree to stop the war during Ramadan? Absurd if you ask me.</STRONG>

If you were in power you would be signing the death warrant of every single american in the region.
That is all i am going to say.

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>You still won't admit how much ground was lost over the period of one single day?
</STRONG>

@Quark, I'm afraid you have me at a loss. *Still?* I don't think we've had this discussion before, so why the use of that word? As to the amount of "ground lost," we lost nothing, because it never was "ours" in the first place, and because the war was already lost at that time. It couldn't be won. All the serious historians who have studied and written about that agree upon this fact. What serious scholars have you read that said otherwise?

The Ho Chi Min trail has a name for a reason.

Sure. He led the native troops that fought in the IndoChina War against the occupying French back in the 1940s, much like George Washington or Bolivar did for their nations. He *was* literally the Father of his Nation. Or do you honestly think they would give the name of the trail to a Communist party functionary, rather than the father of their nation? What good Vietnamese histories have you read?

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

That's not even close to why it's called the Ho Chi Min trail.

Do you know what it is? I'm too lazy to dig up the info and explain it 100% correctly in another long winded post. If you don't know what it is, then you need to in order to understand my opinion about Nov 17. If you do and still don't understand, then I hope you never have power over the lives of Americans. People died because the US agreed to not attack on a so-called 'holy' day.

Oh, yeah: [url="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/gen.attack.on.terror/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/gen.attack.on.terror/index.html[/url]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>That's not even close to why it's called the Ho Chi Min trail.
</STRONG>

Quark, like I did previously in the other Afghan thread, I advice you to do some history reading.

From history.com:

Soon the trails in the supply corridor gained a new collective nickname, the Ho Chi Minh Trail, in honor of the Vietnamese Communists' chief revolutionary.

A link to a review of a monobiography of Ho Chi Minh:
[url="http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20010129/hochi.html"]http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazine/20010129/hochi.html[/url]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>That's not even close to why it's called the Ho Chi Min trail.

Do you know what it is? I'm too lazy to dig up the info and explain it 100% correctly in another long winded post. If you don't know what it is, then you need to in order to understand my opinion about Nov 17. If you do and still don't understand, then I hope you never have power over the lives of Americans. People died because the US agreed to not attack on a so-called 'holy' day.
</STRONG>

Actually, yes, I do know why, and the reason it was named after Ho Chi Minh was the one I gave you, and CE gave you. I know there are some extreme right-wing organizations who promulgate a bunch of nonsense about it, but I trust you've done your research, right?

Now, I asked what histories you'd read of Vietnam. I'm still waiting for an answer. That will at least furnish us with the ability to discuss specific, relevant facts, having a common store of knowledge to draw from. So, let's have those names, okay?

As for people dying on that day because the US didn't attack, I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense at all. An unwillingness to attack does not equate to an unpreparedness to meet attacks, nor to an unwillingness to hold positions, dig in, scout, etc. Unpreparedness was responsible for losses that day, and an inept political policy which refused to recognize facts-on-the-ground was responsible for the continuation of a lost war, in the first place.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>
5) Ho Chih Minh applied to be *our* client after WWII, but we turned him down.
</STRONG>

A sad day for both countries.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>A sad day for both countries. </STRONG>

We have always had a bad knack for choosing to support the wrong sides, usually to please somebody else. In Vietnam's case, we were trying to please the French--who frankly don't give points for trying to curry their favor. And supporting the "Bolivar of Vietnam" wouldn't have hurt us locally or regionally, either.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>We have always had a bad knack for choosing to support the wrong sides, usually to please somebody else. In Vietnam's case, we were trying to please the French--who frankly don't give points for trying to curry their favor. And supporting the "Bolivar of Vietnam" wouldn't have hurt us locally or regionally, either. </STRONG>

I can see the thinking at the time. Please the French to get support against Russia. Hindsight

My father (I will this once call him that) went over there for three tours. The last time I can only guess his mind left him. Mom says after the last time he was never right in the head again. I was too young at the time to know...but I do remember the cops dragging him out of the house. Strange to think, this is the only memory I have of him.

@Weasel, US intelligence (which some would call an oxymoron) has always suffered, IM"H"O, from being too tactical, too shortranged:

Does the Soviet have two allies in Central Western Africa? Fine: let's provide enough tax money for one of the rebels in a third nation to buy arms from our suppliers (ain't capitalism great?) so he can seize control and set up a ruthless dictatorship in our hands rather than the uncommitted ruthless dictatorship that was there before. Nevermind the fact that our man is no worse than his predecessor; when the need for our puppet vanishes, everyone will remember the last maniac, and we'll get the credit for installing him.

I have no objection to our government bribing, blackmailing, or strongarming third parties on the international level--not on a pragmatic, realpolitik level. After all, that's the way the game is played, and if you refuse to play it that way, you lose. But I do think that we might at least make a few attempts to support some maniacs avid for power who are no worse than the maniacs we elect, ourselves.