Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    east... iraq? afghanistan? both?
    yes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ]{ingnik)
    yes
    you can't argue that what happened in afghaninstan was well deserved tho
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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

    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    excellently said
    You're sig's a little out of date .
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.