History - Foreign Conflicts - Vietnam

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Bhaal85
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
But looking at the two countries before the conflict, you wouldn't have expected anything different. The point is that, due to brilliant tactics, despite their losses, the Vietnamese were never defeated by the Americans.
Geurilla warfare.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by fred0202)
Do you think that if America put the full force of it's military in to the war they would have won? America didn't have the stomach to see so many troops being killed in a far distant land.
They would have won eventually, but there would have been many more losses and more powerful military techniques used. You cannot dispute that the Vietnamese, using their geurilla tactics, did incredibly well against the Americans and many of the huge casualties they incurred were due to times they did not use geurilla warfare such as the Tet Offensive.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
i think saying Bush is a terrorist is going a bit far, however he does have an amazing way with starting wars. However, i dont understand what Bush and a 40-50 year old war have to do with each other
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by cungdantinhyeu)
vietnam is the best country, we love peace and hate war. we are very friendly and always want to make friends with every people. But i am very angry with the American goverment attitudes, they want to control Vietnam, because they were defeated in Vietnam war, so they always hate Vietnam.
I think Bush is the terrorist, because he himself make dangerous problems for The American .
well didn't the war start with the north invading the south? Then, the north took over the south, and became one country, so how can you say vietnam loves peace, when one half started a war, and in the same paragraph accuse bush of being a terrorist because he starts wars?
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by PadFoot90)
well didn't the war start with the north invading the south? Then, the north took over the south, and became one country, so how can you say vietnam loves peace, when one half started a war, and in the same paragraph accuse bush of being a terrorist because he starts wars?
Because the Americans decided to get involved because of their Domino Theory.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
Because the Americans decided to get involved because of their Domino Theory.
yeah but that in no way involves bush.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
(Original post by PadFoot90)
yeah but that in no way involves bush.
Very true, indeed, Kerry insulted Bush for not fighting in Vietnam, but one could argue it was good that Bush did not fight in this stupid war.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
Very true, indeed, Kerry insulted Bush for not fighting in Vietnam, but one could argue it was good that Bush did not fight in this stupid war.
agreed (dont want to spout of about politics) but i dont see how Kerry thinks bragging about fighting in some terrible war will get him elected. I could care less whether he did or not
0
]{ingnik
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by fred0202)
How is Bush a terrorist?
and i quote: "Terrorism, originating from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror), is the term commonly used to refer to the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against a civilian population, for the purpose of producing fear usually for some political end."

is this not describing what bush is doing in the east?
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by ]{ingnik)
and i quote: "Terrorism, originating from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror), is the term commonly used to refer to the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against a civilian population, for the purpose of producing fear usually for some political end."

is this not describing what bush is doing in the east?
east... iraq? afghanistan? both?
0
]{ingnik
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by PadFoot90)
east... iraq? afghanistan? both?
yes
0
blissy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
On 1/23/02, President Bush said "I have no ambition whatsoever to use [9/11 or national security] as a political issue."
On 5/17/02, Vice President Cheney said using 9/11 for political gain is "thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war."
On 3/4/03, Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) is asked if Republicans should use the war for political gain and responded, "Absolutely not. And as a Republican, I would deplore such tactics."
[Sources: AP, 1/23/02; Washington Times, 5/17/02; CNN, 3/4/02]

Grrrrr!
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by ]{ingnik)
yes
you can't argue that what happened in afghaninstan was well deserved tho
0
]{ingnik
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by PadFoot90)
you can't argue that what happened in afghaninstan was well deserved tho
yes, but bush cannot justify his outrageous foreign policy when you consider the events in iraq. he had no motive, no real evidence to go on and has ruined many thousands of lives. his removal of sadam should not have been the concern of america, as was once chanted by war protesters in the 60s, "who are we to police the world?"
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
o i know, i totally agree, except saddam needed to go, and i am very glad he did, he was a threat to our allies.
0
]{ingnik
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
(Original post by PadFoot90)
o i know, i totally agree, except saddam needed to go, and i am very glad he did, he was a threat to our allies.
perhaps, but not enough of a threat to justify the war. surely it is up to the iraqi peoples to push for a revolution.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
(Original post by ]{ingnik)
perhaps, but not enough of a threat to justify the war. surely it is up to the iraqi peoples to push for a revolution.
actually, there definatly was enough of a threat, around the gulf war he launced SCUDS into israel
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by ]{ingnik)
and i quote: "Terrorism, originating from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror), is the term commonly used to refer to the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence, against a civilian population, for the purpose of producing fear usually for some political end."

is this not describing what bush is doing in the east?
That's rubbish. There's nothing wrong with being angry at what Bush is doing, but you're just making a fool of yourself my claiming it's "terrorism". Firstly, there's no arguing that the USA didn't target the civilian population in the Iraq war. Sure, there were civilian casualties, but they didn't intentionally bomb civilians. That would be utterly pointless from a military perspective and would make them even more unpopular. It's even more absurd to claim that they used violence "for the purpose of producing fear" among the civilian population. Why the hell would the USA want Iraq's people to be afraid? What exactly would that accomplish?

I agree that Bush is an idiot, a warmonger and probably an illegitimate president, but he is absolutely not a terrorist by any definition.
0
Apollo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 16 years ago
#39
(Original post by Harry Potter)
That's rubbish. There's nothing wrong with being angry at what Bush is doing, but you're just making a fool of yourself my claiming it's "terrorism". Firstly, there's no arguing that the USA didn't target the civilian population in the Iraq war. Sure, there were civilian casualties, but they didn't intentionally bomb civilians. That would be utterly pointless from a military perspective and would make them even more unpopular. It's even more absurd to claim that they used violence "for the purpose of producing fear" among the civilian population. Why the hell would the USA want Iraq's people to be afraid? What exactly would that accomplish?

I agree that Bush is an idiot, a warmonger and probably an illegitimate president, but he is absolutely not a terrorist by any definition.
excellently said
0
Harry Potter
Badges:
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by PadFoot90)
excellently said
You're sig's a little out of date .
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (1)
9.09%
Confident (3)
27.27%
Indifferent (0)
0%
Unsure (2)
18.18%
Worried (5)
45.45%

Watched Threads

View All