"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
news

NOYB wrote:


"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:



"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...




Doug Kanter wrote:




Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
. atl.earthlink.net...





Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...





Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:





On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never
had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the
Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it
was involved in after WW II.


Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).


Neither were major fighting wars against tough, well-trained,
well-led disciplined troops.






It got out with a "draw" in Korea,


Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money
to kill 1 billion Chinese.





and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall
talk enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate
military powers.


Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at
killing us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting
to help preserve someone elses's freedom halfway around the World),
we'd win hands down.



This is based on what? Your somewhat hazy knowledge of 20th century
history?


Statistics and math. 500,000 Chinese and 1.1 million North Koreans
died during the Korean War. 54,000 American perished. When is dying
at a rate of 20:1 compared to our side, he better outnumber us 21:1 if
he hopes to have anybody standing when all is said and done.





Do you know how many Vietnamese died


3 million.

So what's your point? The Vietnamese died at a rate of 60:1 compared to
Americans in that war.

We lost the war of political wills...not the war of actual armed
conflict.





The number is higher, actually.

We lost the war, period.


3 million dead Vietnamese compared to 58,000 Americans.

We quit because of the lack of political will...not because we were
beaten.


We quit because we lost. We had our butts whipped, and we retreated. Your
revisionism serves you well, I am sure, but...we lost in Vietnam.
The other side won.

The US has not won a major shooting war since 1945. There is no reason to
believe it would "win" a major shooting war now. In fact, the only way to
win such a war is to not have one.

"The only way to win is not to play".

I saw that movie. War Games (1983).

(But that was before SDI) ;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally)
kicked the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the
news, on days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least not
until we reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a
disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???

Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

What would you have preferred happened, Doug? Let Pusan (and the
Americans holed up there) be overrun instead?

Harry says we fought to a draw. Not a chance. Truman's objective was to
recapture Seoul and reestablish an independent South Korea. In that case,
we clearly won.

Had MacArthur pushed into N. Korea as *he* wanted, we'd have probably
engaged the entire Soviet military (instead of just their fighter pilots)
*and* the Chinese. Inevitably, nukes would have been used.

If we "only fought to a draw", it was because of the looming threat of a
nuclear engagement with Russia. This is an example of how nukes tip the
balance of power. And this is precisely why a nuclear Iran is such a
scary thought.







In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on,
the quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between
8 and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?

Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?
We'll never know "how long would've been enough" since we didn't fight
that war appropriately.

Air Force generals who know what they're talking about were telling Nixon
that the bombing was not producing results. Pretty unusual advice from guys
whose specialty is dropping bombs, and who had been doing exactly that to
Hanoi for many years. Hanoi was symbolic, not strategic.




You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20
times more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

In Korea we did. Does that still mean that we "fought to a draw"?

Vietnam has nothing to do with Korea in this discussion. In Vietnam, our
goal was not reached. It's a Communist country like China, one which picks
and chooses its interactions with the West.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom

I find it amazing that people are still running around with blinders
on, and believing that just because a group of people, or a country, is
somehow inferior to us because they have different beliefs and values.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally)
kicked the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the
news, on days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least
not until we reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a
disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???

Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

What would you have preferred happened, Doug? Let Pusan (and the
Americans holed up there) be overrun instead?

Harry says we fought to a draw. Not a chance. Truman's objective was to
recapture Seoul and reestablish an independent South Korea. In that
case, we clearly won.

Had MacArthur pushed into N. Korea as *he* wanted, we'd have probably
engaged the entire Soviet military (instead of just their fighter pilots)
*and* the Chinese. Inevitably, nukes would have been used.

If we "only fought to a draw", it was because of the looming threat of a
nuclear engagement with Russia. This is an example of how nukes tip the
balance of power. And this is precisely why a nuclear Iran is such a
scary thought.







In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on,
the quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between
8 and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?

Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?
We'll never know "how long would've been enough" since we didn't fight
that war appropriately.

Air Force generals who know what they're talking about were telling Nixon
that the bombing was not producing results. Pretty unusual advice from
guys whose specialty is dropping bombs, and who had been doing exactly
that to Hanoi for many years. Hanoi was symbolic, not strategic.

And what about the ground troops not crossing 17th parallel?






You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20
times more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

In Korea we did. Does that still mean that we "fought to a draw"?

Vietnam has nothing to do with Korea in this discussion. In Vietnam, our
goal was not reached. It's a Communist country like China, one which picks
and chooses its interactions with the West.

Our goal wasn't reached due to a lack of political will...not a lack of
military capability.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:05:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

Uh, you may want to consider reading a little about the Korean War. We
did push past the 38th parallel, way past. China didn't enter the war
until we were approaching the Yalu River. Oh, and MacArthur may have been
a great General, but he forgot, in this country, the President is the
Commander in Chief..


Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?

LOL, perhaps it is because the B-52 wasn't quite yet in our inventory.

wrote:

I find it amazing that people are still running around with blinders
on


I do too. Would you please take them off?

"Brian" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I find it amazing that people are still running around with blinders
on


I do too. Would you please take them off?


Kevin doesn't have blinders.....he's got his head stuck too far up harry's
ass

You are both wrong. Viet Nam was LOST because of the lack of intestinal
fortitude displayed by our civilian "leaders", not because our military
couldn't do the job. Johnson and McNamara were military geniuses!
Iraq will be the same story. Rummy stated that the US was prepared to handle
2 major conflicts. WRONG.
To begin with, the Generals told the White House Saddam was contained and
did not require our attention at the time, when the White House persisted,
the Generals said we would require 400,000 to 450,000 troops to secure the
borders, maintain civil order, and secure the military sites. BTW; none of
these essential goals were or have been met.
The White House wanted to stay popular so sent something like 1/3 of what
the Generals recommended.
After the initial occupation, Jay Garner, the retired General in charge of
the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) put forth
the idea of converting the old, 400,000 man Iraqi Army to the New Iraqi
Army. We would have been able to do so by paying them on time. These guys
had no loyalties to the old regime. Most were conscripts. The only elements
of the Iraqi Army that would die for Saddam were the Republican Guard. This,
not Al Queda, is the core element of the insurgency.
Instead he was replaced by a Diplidink whose greatest accomplishment was to
write a bunch of "laws" like "drive with both hands on the wheel" and "don't
use your horn unless necessary". Talk about missing the big picture! But, he
gave the White House the answers they wanted and looked good on camera and
so was awarded the Medal of Freedom.
The only way we will be able to stabilize Iraq is to institute a draft and
build the forces up to handle the job; but this would make the war
unpopular- so the White House avoids at the idea.
Our glorious leaders created the problems we are experiencing in Iraq by not
listening to the people paid to advise them. Any corporate CEO or board
would be fired for such a screw up.
Kerry was roasted by some Bush supported ******s on how many Purple Hearts
he actually earned and the Shrub should have been brought up on charges of
dereliction of duty for skipping out on a physical that may have cleared him
to go in harms way.
How many of you boneheads really believe Al Queda is going to show up in
your hometown of Bumphuck, Iowa?
"Keep 'em scared and stupid" is the new Republican motto and it works.
How many of you realize we sent more troops to Granada than to Afghanistan?
Collusion or stupidity?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
Almost as well as Caesar!

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
ink.net...

Napoleon? Did pretty well for a while, eh?

Butch
"Harry.Krause" wrote in message
...

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Later,

Tom


Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.





Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

and was whipped by Vietnam. Our sophisticated weaponry and tall talk
enables us to take on and defeat third and fourth rate military powers.

Actually, we're much better at killing the bad guys than they are at
killing us. If we were in a war for survival (instead of fighting to help
preserve someone elses's freedom halfway around the World), we'd win hands
down.

In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on, the
quicker we lose patience and leave.

You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20 times
more men.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:05:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

Uh, you may want to consider reading a little about the Korean War. We
did push past the 38th parallel, way past. China didn't enter the war
until we were approaching the Yalu River.

The Chinese were neck-deep in things from the beginning. China gave its
blessings for the start of the war to Kim, and then supplied the North
Koreans during the early months of the war. They were an active participant
from the very beginning. MacArthur wanted to hit supply depots in China, and
Truman refused. Yes, MacArthur pushed north to the Yalu, but it was against
Truman's orders. That's why I said that "Truman didn't allow MacArthur to
push past the 38th". Six months later, MacArthur was removed from command.



Oh, and MacArthur may have been
a great General, but he forgot, in this country, the President is the
Commander in Chief..

True.





Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?

LOL, perhaps it is because the B-52 wasn't quite yet in our inventory.


LOL? The reference to the 17th parallel had to do with my discussion with
Doug about Vietnam. Korea didn't have a "17th parallel". That should have
been your first clue.

And the B-52 was very much in our inventory during the Vietnam war.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:10:16 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On this day in 1862 the French, the one nation that has never had a
major military victory, had their asses handed to them by the Mexican
Army.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

Just another contribution to the French schizoid personality of
feeling superior while actually being inferior. :)

Au contraire, mon ami.

You forget that the French won the French Revolution.
Of course, they were fighting the French.

ROTFL!!!!