- Oct 9, 2005
- 4,497
- 349
- 126
It is alright to try win hearts after the conclusion of the war. But it is disastrous to go to battle without a clear objective.
Do you agree or don't agree?
Do you agree or don't agree?
It is alright to try win hearts after the conclusion of the war. But it is disastrous to go to battle without a clear objective.
Do you agree or don't agree?
? Most certainly not. 'Clear objective...?' No.That was the lesson of Vietnam.
It is alright to try win hearts after the conclusion of the war. But it is disastrous to go to battle without a clear objective.
Do you agree or don't agree?
It is alright to try win hearts after the conclusion of the war. But it is disastrous to go to battle without a clear objective.
Do you agree or don't agree?
I agree. Too much PC bullshit.
It is alright to try win hearts after the conclusion of the war. But it is disastrous to go to battle without a clear objective.
Do you agree or don't agree?
Yes, to win a war you need a clear objective. The problem is what that objective is. It seems you think the objective is to kill a lot of people. I disagree. Killing a lot of people is not going to do any good. We simply can't kill enough people to 'win' this sort of fight with out becoming much worse then the problem we are trying to solve.
Let me give you an example. Lets say I get a group of my friends together, some really big mean guys, and we come over to your house. We kick in your door and punch you in the face, and kick you while you are down. Then spend the rest of the night eating your food, breaking your stuff, and generally trashing everything you care about. You can do nothing but weakly protest, and when you do we give you another kick in your gut and laugh at your cries.
Then the next morning I grab your hand and help you up, brush the dirt off your coat and tell you that now that you know your place we should be friends.
How well motivated are you to be my friend?
Are you saying that is what happens to everyone in your theoretical war? I think the OP was talking more broad level and i have yet to see a war that did not affect people in the way you speak no matter who justified the war was.
Lets say I get a group of my friends together, some really big mean guys, and we come over to your house. We kick in your door and punch you in the face, and kick you while you are down. Then spend the rest of the night eating your food, breaking your stuff, and generally trashing everything you care about. You can do nothing but weakly protest, and when you do we give you another kick in your gut and laugh at your cries.
The failure of the Vietnam War was that there was a Vietnam War.
Whiskey is the hero o' this thread. Nae need for further discussion, really.
You are from Texas, right?
Yes I am. But that paragraph was meant as a metaphor for the United States habit of invading other countries that have no real ability to resist us. Notice how we don't invade China to look for WMDs or bomb the Russian military to stop their aggression against their neighbors. We act like bullies picking on the weak and no one is going to love us for it.
To be fair if you look at Thailand, communism has caused a complete mess over there.