Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree200Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:19 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto2 View Post
We lost the Vietnam for many reasons. Not the least of which was no national or political will to actually fight it. The Theory of limited war is bullshit. Rules of Engagement are bullshit.
I refuse to accept that. We cannot afford to fight a total war as that would most likely involve nukes. Not to mention even if it did remain conventional it would likely spiral out of control and result in an international crisis or even outright war.

I will never stoop to the level of our enemies. Our forces as a whole certainly won't. What's the point of fighting for our principles if we can't even uphold them? And I refuse to believe that the only way to win a war is to go against this thinking.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:20 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto2 View Post
I would also add that "Proportional Force" is a bullshit theory too.
Elaborate.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:20 AM   #53
Hiding behind the sofa
 
MichaelT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stockport England
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
No. We declare war on states. To declare war is to consider the enemy at least a political entity. This would give them recognition, power and influence that we can't afford to give and frankly they don't deserve.
So you believe North Vietnam wasn't a state or political entity

Have you studied the origins of the war at all ?
MichaelT is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:23 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Can we get back on topic?

Stay on the subject of the Vietnam War please. Talking about the Cold War in general is fine so long as it doesn't overshadow the main purpose of the thread.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:25 AM   #55
Hiding behind the sofa
 
MichaelT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stockport England
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
You consider Greece and Turkey as being on the North Atlantic?
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/asse...light_2009.pdf
So do you think the other NATO members would have allowed South Vietnam to join.

Last edited by MichaelT; May 19th, 2016 at 10:29 AM.
MichaelT is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:29 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
So you believe North Vietnam wasn't a state or political entity

Have you studied the origins of the war at all ?
No I'm talking about today. I was responding to a post by Tristanrobin about why we don't declare war on terrorists and insurgents.

And in Vietnam the US wasn't officially fighting the North, just the Viet Cong, a guerrilla force made up of communists from the South. The US couldn't go to war with the North because it could cause retaliation from China and the USSR.

Do you even read my first post? I thought it had demonstrated I'd at least done some homework on the war.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:29 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/asse...light_2009.pdf
So do you think the other NATO members would have allowed South Vietnam to join.
Why wouldn't they have allowed it? They at least could have been made a major non NATO ally like South Korea.

Last edited by locke23; May 19th, 2016 at 10:33 AM.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:30 AM   #58
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/asse...light_2009.pdf
So do you think the other NATO members would have allowed South Vietnam to join.
Not then, now yes.
RNG is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:32 AM   #59
Hiding behind the sofa
 
MichaelT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stockport England
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Can we get back on topic?

Stay on the subject of the Vietnam War please. Talking about the Cold War in general is fine so long as it doesn't overshadow the main purpose of the thread.
You can't talk about the Vietnam war without including the Cold War, as the Cold War was the sole reason the USA got involved in Vietnam and it was the reason the USA fought it as it did.
Thanks from Hollywood
MichaelT is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 10:33 AM   #60
Hiding behind the sofa
 
MichaelT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Stockport England
Posts: 1,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Not then, now yes.
No they wouldn't
The NATO countries have been always clear on the limits of NATO.
It's a defence pact that defends North America and Europe only.

Last edited by MichaelT; May 19th, 2016 at 10:40 AM.
MichaelT is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
vietnam, war, won



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Look Back at the Vietnam War kcvet World History 15 September 17th, 2013 07:59 AM
Lesson of Vietnam webguy4 Opinion Polls 40 August 20th, 2013 02:58 PM
What was Vietnam?? prescott911 Opinion Polls 106 March 24th, 2013 01:29 AM
Worse Than Vietnam? intangible child Warfare 6 June 30th, 2010 12:41 PM
Will Obama's war become his Vietnam? CNN Current Events 2 December 1st, 2009 10:29 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.