• '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If you think I said that, Jermo, then you did not read what I wrote correctly.

    The United States used Desert Storm as the Coups de Grass for the Cold War.  But the Cold War did not end just because the Soviet Union collapsed and we were A) naive and B) hosing the deck with premature testosterone.

    Meanwhile, China was buying a president and buying intercontinental ballistic missile guidance systems from said president and getting the flood gates opened to purchase a large portion of our oil out of the Alaskan pipeline.

  • '19 Moderator

    @M36:

    Well, most of you will think I’m crazy if I say this, but I enlisted in the United States Marine Corp instead of going to college which means I am crazy, so I’m gonna say it anyways.

    WW3 was declared many centuries ago, but it was not until September 11th 2001 that the western world finally realized that war had been declared upon them. Once they did realize this, they cowered and tried to appease their opponents, that is, all but one nation. The United States, led by president George Bush chose to fight back and launched offensives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both offensives achieved minimal success however, because the leaders of the United States are unaware that there is only one way to achieve victory. The terrorist peoples that oppose the United States, however, have a clear idea of how to overcome the Behemoth, but they lack the means to do it, because they are continually thwarted by the men serving in the United States armed forces. Therefore, WW3 is currently at a stalemate. The United States does not know how to win, and Islam lacks the means to win. Eventually, however, I forsee a victory for Islam, because the warriors that keep them at bay today will not live forever, and the spineless fools that you and your spouses are producing will not be able to protect you from such a determined enemy.

    So in other words, you folks are all kind of screwed when all of us warriors are six feet under.  :lol:

    I hate to entertain this off topic nonscence, but first of all I assume by this you figure to go home and raise up a couple “spineless fools” yourself?  M, don’t let the corp push what little remains of your natural reasoning ability out of your head.  It’s ok to use your own brain to create your own thoughts every once in awhile even if you have to do it by light of a flashlight under a blanket.

    Both of my oldest children have told me a number of times that they can’t wait to join the army when they get old enough, fortunately I have 10 years or so to get some sense into thier heads, slim chance though I supose my father is a vietnam vet, my grand father is a Korean vet, my great grand father is a WWI vet and his father fought against the Spanish.

    So, M, if you don’t know what your talking about, don’t.


  • @Pervavita:

    Chosin Reservour in Korea saw a major conflict between US and Chines troops. i would say that meets your criteria of a conflict between powers.
    the war over all was world wide in scope, there were however no major German vs US conflicts. it was many theaters of one war over many years.

    Again, I repeat that the Korean War was in fact a war.  But it wasn’t part of the Cold War, and it wasn’t WW3.
    I don’t understand your second statement.

    @ncscswitch:

    Too much time in between?

    It was multiple continuous conflicts spread over the entire 50 year time span and encompassed the globe.

    Just because you did not have 10,000,000 men in uniform in the field does NOT preclude it from being a world war.

    Yes, too isolated and separated by time.

    Look, it’s easy to lump them all together, but they weren’t connected except that the US felt they needed to get involved in each one.  So perhaps you are arguing that WW3 was perpetrated by the US?

    It’s quite a stretch to link all those together in a global conflict.  Individually, it didn’t matter whether they were won or lost (and primarily we “lost” each one), and, ultimately, we came out on top even though we couldn’t police the world.

    @balungaloaf:

    indeed.  the USSR wanted world communism, its their goal and the goal on the comintern(communist international).

    they wouldnt let eastern europe govern itself after WWII.  thats huge.  that makes everyone wary.  then they beef up the military of USSR backed n.korea to let it invade s.korea.  it was a test to see if they can use surrogates to achieve their means.  our response told them no.

    Well, the US wanted the world as well, and the entire world after WW2 was not allowed to govern itself - the Koreas, SE Asia, Middle East, Africa, etc., etc.  This was not entirely the Commies’ fault.  And, the USSR actually didn’t back N. Korea invading S. Korea, even when asked.  Their involvement didn’t occur until the US crossed the agreed-upon demarcation line (38th parallel).  So really, we were the aggressors and China and USSR responded (and even warned us they would do so).

    they tried to influence takeovers in france, germany, spain, italy, latin america all by funding communist groups and communist parties.  by gaining these countries, they would find new allies in a war against america.

    see whats going on here.  they would have slowly isolated us into nothing.  choke of our foreign trade and resources and not have to fight to destroy us.

    The problem is the US held this view, just as you do, and it was incorrect.  So we jumped into conflicts that we couldn’t win and were pointless to begin with.  Just because countries were becoming communist does not mean that they were just an extension of the USSR.  They didn’t want to be under the heel of either superpower.  I’d like to also see where you read about these supposed coups that all primarily failed or were redundant anyway.  And it’s not like the US didn’t stage coups of its own.

    they tried again in vietnam.  after the french got kicked out by the communist ho chi mihn, we went to protect the new nation of s.vietnam from the communist north, again backed by the USSR.  after the n.vietnamese takeover, due to democrats in congress (after a s.vietnames repulsion of a 2 million man northern invasion (bigger than barborosa) without any american ground troops) abondoning the country with no aid.  the communists spread into cambodia and laos.  thialand and burma resorted to military dictatorships to stop communism.  that happens alot.

    Again, you misconstrue the situation.  The Soviets had really no significant involvement in the Vietnam War.  The Vietnamese wanted a unified country, but didn’t agree on which method of rule.  The core conflict again was unification of Vietnam without another country ruling over it.  The US was afraid that if Vietnam went Communist, all of SE Asia would.  So we extended a conflict that was destined to lose anyway, for completely misguided (and wrong) reasons.

    Besides that, Vietnam attacked communist Cambodia and repulsed a (communist) China invasion after we left.  So much for that communism spread.

    @Cmdr:

    If you think I said that, Jermo, then you did not read what I wrote correctly.

    The United States used Desert Storm as the Coups de Grass for the Cold War.  But the Cold War did not end just because the Soviet Union collapsed and we were A) naive and B) hosing the deck with premature testosterone.

    Meanwhile, China was buying a president and buying intercontinental ballistic missile guidance systems from said president and getting the flood gates opened to purchase a large portion of our oil out of the Alaskan pipeline.

    Ok, I guess the key here is you don’t understand the term coup de grace.  So look it up.
    And again I reiterate that you and many here claimed multiple times that the Cold War ended with a Reagan victory.  But I don’t really care enough to push that.

    BTW, you just sound like a conspiracy theorist.  Care to say something about 9/11?

    @dezrtfish:

    I hate to entertain this off topic nonscence, but first of all I assume by this you figure to go home and raise up a couple “spineless fools” yourself?  M, don’t let the corp push what little remains of your natural reasoning ability out of your head.  It’s ok to use your own brain to create your own thoughts every once in awhile even if you have to do it by light of a flashlight under a blanket.

    Both of my oldest children have told me a number of times that they can’t wait to join the army when they get old enough, fortunately I have 10 years or so to get some sense into thier heads, slim chance though I supose my father is a vietnam vet, my grand father is a Korean vet, my great grand father is a WWI vet and his father fought against the Spanish.

    So, M, if you don’t know what your talking about, don’t.

    I hope I didn’t misunderstand you…but I think you’d be doing your kids the right thing.  Father first, fighter second.


  • ok the cold war was between the Western powers and the Eastern powers. N Korea moved to attack S Korea with it’s USSR and Chines allies. the US steped in to prevent the invasion. ok so we have a war there. the thing is the US got in to oppose the USSR agressions. even though they were not USSR troops but there allies. it’s like saying that when the Allies landed in Italy we still wern’t fighting WWII (as the US) because we wern’t fighting Germans there. if you make a move on the allie of a nation that is supported by it’s allie then you are in fact fighting that nation. we may have never shot Russians (although it’s debated that there were Russian pilots in the area that we did fight) but we did shoot there allies. i think that constatutes that we would have been fighting the USSR the same as attacking Italy was attacking Germany.
    no one wanted the big knock out fight with Russia/USA so there was a lot of behind the sceens political stuff to make it not apear to be a war between the two so that nether would take the big gamble of lossing to the other. it was all a bunch of streached out fights to give the illusion of small non related wars.


  • @Pervavita:

    ok the cold war was between the Western powers and the Eastern powers. N Korea moved to attack S Korea with it’s USSR and Chines allies. the US steped in to prevent the invasion. ok so we have a war there. the thing is the US got in to oppose the USSR agressions. even though they were not USSR troops but there allies. it’s like saying that when the Allies landed in Italy we still wern’t fighting WWII (as the US) because we wern’t fighting Germans there. if you make a move on the allie of a nation that is supported by it’s allie then you are in fact fighting that nation. we may have never shot Russians (although it’s debated that there were Russian pilots in the area that we did fight) but we did shoot there allies. i think that constatutes that we would have been fighting the USSR the same as attacking Italy was attacking Germany.

    First off, N. Korea invaded S. Korea on its own to unify the peninsula.  Each side was administrated by USSR & the US because every single occupied territory was divided up after WW2.  The USSR & China did not act until the US crossed the DMZ after repeated warnings.  You can read about this.  It’s not a mystery.
    It’s clear that the Koreans wanted to be unified.  It’s clear that there was division under which system of rule it should be done on.  It’s clear that the Koreans didn’t want the USSR or US to determine their future.  Either way, it was a power struggle primarily between the Koreans that was reinforced by our Cold War.  Our insistence that there was some Commie ploy going on only served to extend the conflict.  I’m not saying that the UN was wrong in trying to protect S. Korea.  But the problem of separation is still there, and the USSR has long been dead.

    I don’t know what you are saying exactly with the Italy thing.  For one, Germany occupied Italy when they secretly surrendered.  We were primarily fighting Germans.  Second, Italy was in the Axis pact.  It was clear that they were against us.  Third, N. Korea was administrated by the USSR - they weren’t allies.  The Koreans wanted everyone out.  Same in Vietnam.

    no one wanted the big knock out fight with Russia/USA so there was a lot of behind the sceens political stuff to make it not apear to be a war between the two so that nether would take the big gamble of lossing to the other. it was all a bunch of streached out fights to give the illusion of small non related wars.

    Of course, you are talking about the Cold War.  But it wasn’t WW3.  Each one of those fights you talk about were only exacerbated by the Cold War powers.  They would have occurred anyway, with or without that involvement.

    It’s not that I disagree entirely, though.  I do think that in the case of Korea, much of the buildup was the power struggle between the USSR & US.  But much of that was natural consequence to the resolution of WW2.  Spoils of war and all that.


  • but the behind the sceens power in the fights were US/USSR. this means they were conflicts but with pupets to fight for them. it was not a war like WWI or WWII, it was a new kind of war that isn’t fully understood yet due to nukes and such heavy forighn propaganda the likes that has never been sceen before.
    we have taken a leap in war fair that is not like any in the past. spies are something thats been around for a long time, but not like this in controlling smaller governments to fight for them (that isn’t new) and pull tricks to make it look like they didn’t do it and at the same time have power to make the other nation save face to not accuse them out right and go to direct war with them due to nukes.


  • @Pervavita:

    but the behind the sceens power in the fights were US/USSR. this means they were conflicts but with pupets to fight for them. it was not a war like WWI or WWII, it was a new kind of war that isn’t fully understood yet due to nukes and such heavy forighn propaganda the likes that has never been sceen before.
    we have taken a leap in war fair that is not like any in the past. spies are something thats been around for a long time, but not like this in controlling smaller governments to fight for them (that isn’t new) and pull tricks to make it look like they didn’t do it and at the same time have power to make the other nation save face to not accuse them out right and go to direct war with them due to nukes.

    Ok.  :roll:
    Exactly what good would it do for the USSR or US to have the Koreas go at it?  Or the Vietnams?  And why would the US go in militarily when it could just get nations to do its bidding?

    The Koreas and Vietnam proved to be valueless to the Cold War Superpowers.  Only the US thought it was worth going into to stymie the Communist expansion.  Hindsight shows us we were stupid to believe that, and that we couldn’t stop it anyway.

    And finally I get you to agree that the Cold War was not a World War.  Thank you.

  • 2007 AAR League

    they used n.korean tanks and arms.  and russian pilots flew the migs in mig alley.  and we shot them down, and them us.  thats pretty warlike.


  • no i didn’t i said it was a new kind of war, not that it wasn’t a world war.

    the benifit of Korea and Vnam is they provide resources to the USSR. remember the USSR policy was to have weak states around it that acted as a buffer. they also provided resources and troops if in a war. the US wen’t in to prevent this (and the spread of communism of course). the US sent troops into places to boost numbers where needed.


  • @balungaloaf:

    they used n.korean tanks and arms.  and russian pilots flew the migs in mig alley.  and we shot them down, and them us.  thats pretty warlike.

    Who used N. Korean tanks and arms?

    Yes, the Russians & Chinese attacked the US, only after warning them of crossing the DMZ.  In  their eyes, it was defense against the encroaching US forces.  The Soviet involvement didn’t really go past that, so I’d hardly call that a US-USSR war.  The Chinese did, but that was because they warned the US that invading N. Korea was a threat to them, and they would act.  So they did when we didn’t listen to them.

    @Pervavita:

    no i didn’t i said it was a new kind of war, not that it wasn’t a world war.

    the benifit of Korea and Vnam is they provide resources to the USSR. remember the USSR policy was to have weak states around it that acted as a buffer. they also provided resources and troops if in a war. the US wen’t in to prevent this (and the spread of communism of course). the US sent troops into places to boost numbers where needed.

    “It was not a war like WW1 or WW2” is what you said.  Therefore, not a World War.  But how was it a new kind of war?  You had open conflict.  That’s war.  You had clear sides.  But involvement of the USSR is exaggerated.


  • i ment it as in there was no major pushes with victory of capture a city and you win type war. no side could afford to fight like that as the fear of nukes was there that could win the war for ether side in one simple move. it was war, it was on large war, it had many diffrent theaters that crossed over 4 of the 6 populated continouts, and the last two being N Amarica and Ociana. US was invalved so we now had 5 out of 6 invalved. thats more or the same as WWI.

  • '19 Moderator

    @Jermofoot:

    I hope I didn’t misunderstand you…but I think you’d be doing your kids the right thing.  Father first, fighter second.

    It’s a tough position to be in, I hope my children can serve the country in a less sacrificial way than I have and will, but whatever their choice I will be proud…

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @dezrtfish:

    @Jermofoot:

    I hope I didn’t misunderstand you…but I think you’d be doing your kids the right thing.  Father first, fighter second.

    It’s a tough position to be in, I hope my children can serve the country in a less sacrificial way than I have and will, but whatever their choice I will be proud…

    I’m dropping my kids off at the Army Recruiting station on their 18th Birthday.  They can get a ride back from the recruiters. 😛

    Okay, I’m not THAT heartless, but seriously, service to one’s nation through the military is an awesome way to get some serious life benefits.

    1)  Responsibility and Maturity
    2)  Free College and/or College Living Allowances and reduced tuition
    3)  Veteran access to state and federal functions
    4)  Other then at home, where else can you live at someone else’s expense and put 100% of your earnings into savings/investments!?!


  • with parrents consent you can get them in at 17 and a half  😉
    why waist 6 months.

  • 2007 AAR League

    well, i mean n.korea used soviet tanks and arms.  and it is a fact that kim il sung or whoever asked stalin if it was ok to invade.  stalin would not let him. stalin was in charge here.  after a while stalin blessed the invasion.  it was the USSR giving the orders.  America knew this and tried to stop it to show that the US would counter any russian agression.  and the soviets began this agression by occupying the eastern european countries.

    the Russians concede that it was them all along flying the migs.  thats war also.  and we knew it was them all along.

    and vietnam got all of its armaments of every sort from the USSR for the war.  all those great SAM missiles that shot down our B-52’s were made specifically by the USSR for use by the NVA.  the russians knew what they were doing.  and so did we.

    oh and the comintern.  lenin devised the comintern, and one thing for sure is, is that the USSR ran the comintern as the boss, not as an equal.  and every communist nation joined the comintern, and therefor was wielded by the USSR.  china didnt like it very well and was the only nation strong enough to rebuff the soviets for bossing them around all the time.  b/c china would be able to make russia pay for invading it.  not so with the other nations.

    and with vietnam, how do people always misconstrue this war.

    #1, numero uno, the big fact of the war……,

    the united states went to vietnam to keep if from being taken over by the communist north.

    2.  the us fought and fought and kept the NVA or vietcong from taking over.  it took many years but thats because the north lives right there, they can wait to outlast us.  but we knew this and trained the s. vietnamese soldiers to defend their own country.

    3.  we began to withdraw and let the newly trained s.vietnamese army take care of its own country.  THE COUNTRY WAS STILL FREE, our GOAL ALL ALONG.  we were able to repulse the initial invasions back and keep an insurgency from taking over when it was in full steam.

    4.  our troops are out, our goal is complete.  a victory for what we wanted to accomplish.  the north sensed a southern abandonment by the US and unleashed a 2 million man invasion, backed by armored divisions.  thats huge, thats way bigger than hitlers invasion of the USSR.  but with american naval guns and air support, the s.vietnamese repulsed this invasion.  a HUGE victory.

    5.  ted kennedy that lowlife senator begins his grand campaign to ensure defeat.  well, we shouldnt help them at all he says.  idiots believe his orchestrated defeat clause, man did he ever want us to lose, like democrats today.  he got his democrat majority to cut off funding for the s.vietnamese… 😢  truly a dark day.

    6.  well now the s.vietnamese felt entirely ABANDONED.  morale sinks.  little hope to always be able to again and again repulse a SOVIET funded and armed n.vietnamese army.  without weapons and parts from the US, the s.vietnamese had no chance.  and they knew it…and so did God-damned ted kennedy.

    7.  then after a second huge invasion, the north got what ted kennedy wanted.  their victory.  then the liberal unchallenged media twisted the whole thing into a failure.  it took em 10 years of distortions, but unchallenged, they made their mark.

    so after all, the vietnam war was a winable war.  hell we did win.  we held off the communists until the south could defend itself.  thats what we were there to do.  we werent there to stay in s.vietnam forever.  so we left with our goal completed.  success.  a win.  but the only reason we lost was due to democrats abandoning our victory following the liberal high priest kennedy.  thats right, no way a democrat could ever be in favor of a plan that see’s america lose…no way right?  hmmm, sounds familiar, like now perhaps.  where a democrat is quoted as “success in iraq is bad for our party”.  reid saying we already lost in jan 2007, on and on and on.

    so brush up on your vietnam war history bub, b/c the way you spin it sounds like it came right from old teddy himself.


  • …Hell, the topic should have been “Cold War WWIII!?” Should’ve put it as “Next World War”


  • @Pervavita:

    i ment it as in there was no major pushes with victory of capture a city and you win type war. no side could afford to fight like that as the fear of nukes was there that could win the war for ether side in one simple move. it was war, it was on large war, it had many diffrent theaters that crossed over 4 of the 6 populated continouts, and the last two being N Amarica and Ociana. US was invalved so we now had 5 out of 6 invalved. thats more or the same as WWI.

    Let me get this straight.
    You think that because the US sent the military all over the globe during a 50 year period, that constitutes a World War.
    That’s absurd, but then again…that’s exactly what some foreigners thing of us: aggressors that stick our nose in everybody’s business.  The US was trying to combat the “Red Menace,” but the truth is, we couldn’t stop that, and it had little to do with USSR anyway.  We were convinced otherwise, though.

    @dezrtfish:

    @Jermofoot:

    I hope I didn’t misunderstand you…but I think you’d be doing your kids the right thing.  Father first, fighter second.

    It’s a tough position to be in, I hope my children can serve the country in a less sacrificial way than I have and will, but whatever their choice I will be proud…

    Just tell them to go to school, get a job, work like their life depends on it, take care of their parents, and don’t act like a dumbass.  That should be good.

    @balungaloaf:

    well, i mean n.korea used soviet tanks and arms.  and it is a fact that kim il sung or whoever asked stalin if it was ok to invade.  stalin would not let him. stalin was in charge here.  after a while stalin blessed the invasion.  it was the USSR giving the orders.  America knew this and tried to stop it to show that the US would counter any russian agression.  and the soviets began this agression by occupying the eastern european countries.

    Yes, the N. Koreans had Soviet-made, hand-me-down weaponry & equipment, but so did the S. Koreans (from the US).  That’s how the area was administrated post-WW2.  Same for Europe.
    And Stalin was not calling the shots.  Kim wanted to unite the peninsula, Stalin agreed, but didn’t want to risk getting into another war, possibly with the US.  America didn’t know shit about this - it came as a surprise to the US, the UN, and only S. Korean troops were in S. Korea at the time.

    the Russians concede that it was them all along flying the migs.  thats war also.  and we knew it was them all along.

    Of course it was them, they warned us about crossing the DMZ (and China as well)!  He can you be so obtuse?  Had we stopped at the agreed border, it wouldn’t have been as large of a conflict.

    and vietnam got all of its armaments of every sort from the USSR for the war.  all those great SAM missiles that shot down our B-52’s were made specifically by the USSR for use by the NVA.  the russians knew what they were doing.  and so did we.

    First of all, we were involved in Vietnam before the Soviets, so that’s bull-honkey.  That’s one thing you could actually be mad at France for.  But the N. Vietnamese had the same ambitions as the N. Koreans, and neither China nor the USSR were considered for the future.  That’s where we were wrong.  We say all Communist nations as one giant entity when it wasn’t.

    oh and the comintern.  lenin devised the comintern, and one thing for sure is, is that the USSR ran the comintern as the boss, not as an equal.  and every communist nation joined the comintern, and therefor was wielded by the USSR.  china didnt like it very well and was the only nation strong enough to rebuff the soviets for bossing them around all the time.  b/c china would be able to make russia pay for invading it.  not so with the other nations.

    WTF?  The Comintern was gone before the end of WW2, before China was even Communist.

    #1, numero uno, the big fact of the war……,

    the united states went to vietnam to keep if from being taken over by the communist north.

    Wrong.  The US went in trying to prevent the spread of communist influences, or in this case, USSR influences.  Either way, we were already there.

    2.  the us fought and fought and kept the NVA or vietcong from taking over.  it took many years but thats because the north lives right there, they can wait to outlast us.  but we knew this and trained the s. vietnamese soldiers to defend their own country.

    I can agree with this.

    3.  we began to withdraw and let the newly trained s.vietnamese army take care of its own country.  THE COUNTRY WAS STILL FREE, our GOAL ALL ALONG.  we were able to repulse the initial invasions back and keep an insurgency from taking over when it was in full steam.

    Except it was shown that the S. Vietnamese were pretty much incapable of protecting themselves without us.

    4.  our troops are out, our goal is complete.  a victory for what we wanted to accomplish.  the north sensed a southern abandonment by the US and unleashed a 2 million man invasion, backed by armored divisions.  thats huge, thats way bigger than hitlers invasion of the USSR.  but with american naval guns and air support, the s.vietnamese repulsed this invasion.  a HUGE victory.

    Ok, I don’t know what you are talking about here.  Please clarify.  I think you have the timetable messed up.

    5.  ted kennedy that lowlife senator begins his grand campaign to ensure defeat.  well, we shouldnt help them at all he says.  idiots believe his orchestrated defeat clause, man did he ever want us to lose, like democrats today.  he got his democrat majority to cut off funding for the s.vietnamese…. 😢  truly a dark day.

    More BS.  You don’t even mention how critical the citizens were of the war, or the Paris Peace Accords.  The entire country was tired of it.  It was a lost cause.  Get over it.

    6.  well now the s.vietnamese felt entirely ABANDONED.  morale sinks.  little hope to always be able to again and again repulse a SOVIET funded and armed n.vietnamese army.  without weapons and parts from the US, the s.vietnamese had no chance.  and they knew it……and so did God-damned ted kennedy.

    Well, a truce had been negotiated, and damned if anybody wanted us to go back in.  It would have killed politically anyone who decided that, and anyone with a brain new there was no point to it.  Your forget that CHINA also supplied the N. Vietnamese, but the key here is that Vietnam wanted to united - China nor the USSR had any interest or advantage in annexing the area.

    7.  then after a second huge invasion, the north got what ted kennedy wanted.  their victory.  then the liberal unchallenged media twisted the whole thing into a failure.  it took em 10 years of distortions, but unchallenged, they made their mark.

    Oh geez.  Ted Kennedy wants you to grow a brain so you can provide a real argument.  There must be a hell of a lot of Vietnamese/Commie lovers in the states to reelect a guy continuously that wanted us to lose and the N. Vietnamese to win.  People just wanted out of Vietnam, PERIOD.

    so after all, the vietnam war was a winable war.  hell we did win.  we held off the communists until the south could defend itself.  thats what we were there to do.  we werent there to stay in s.vietnam forever.  so we left with our goal completed.  success.  a win.  but the only reason we lost was due to democrats abandoning our victory following the liberal high priest kennedy.  thats right, no way a democrat could ever be in favor of a plan that see’s america lose……no way right?  hmmm, sounds familiar, like now perhaps.  where a democrat is quoted as “success in iraq is bad for our party”.  reid saying we already lost in jan 2007, on and on and on.

    Vietnam was no more winnable than the Korean War.  Just like Iraq today won’t rid the world of terrorism.  Pointless ventures that accomplished nothing. 
    After it was over, all that happened was Vietnam reunited.  Not the end of the world, communism didn’t win.  We completely misjudged the situation and got burned for it, and you can’t even see it.  What a “success” to hold off the N. Vietnamese for years, then S. Vietnam collapses as soon as we leave.  Yup, that was really worth our trouble. 
    Please, drop the Dem kick, it makes you look like the Loose Change guy, just a different angle.

    so brush up on your vietnam war history bub, b/c the way you spin it sounds like it came right from old teddy himself.

    That’s hilarious.  I’m not the one accusing Democrats of wanting to lose.  Get a different schtick, this one’s tiring.  I also don’t have to qualify my statements with…“we won, until we left.”  Yeah, whatever dude.  I see the history written, and very little matches up with what you say.

  • 2007 AAR League

    ok, trust me, stalin didnt let sung invade, until later, when stalin let sung invade.  sung always wanted to invade, but stalin wouldnt let him.  stalin called the shots.  if you still dont believe me, then i have to go and find sources to show you, which is a pain.

    #2. the UN couldnt just let the n.koreans have a whole country to regroup in and stage invasion after invasion.  they had to go north.  kinda a no-shit-sherlock thing to do.

    and the s.vietnamese could to protect themselves without us. they did against a 2 million man invasion force.  and we did win in vietnam.  the only way we lost was by abondoning the south.  kind of like if we were to succeed in iraq. leave, and then cut off all funding so the government collapses.  which democrats would love to do.

    does this not make sense, we won, came home, and somehow got called for losing when the congress cut off funds to s.vietnam.  our congress was the only reason we lost.  screw the hippie protesters, let them think they actually mattered.

    and so it wasnt a lost cause either.  we succeeded on the battlefield.  we accomplished our mission and came home.  democrats lost the war back at home well after our mission.  get over it.

    and korea, vietnam, and iraq all accomplished alot.  open a God-damn book.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    No one told Stalin what to do.  Even Lenin answered to Stalin.


  • World war III if i can say something

    wont happen. at least not in the form as the World war is clasified

    in this century, IMPO  we will have dozens of wars, in which indirectly will be involved major world powers( China, Russian Federation, USA, India…) but they will not fought directly

    even if they provide military assistance to one side and clash with other sides soldiers of one superpower it will be a war there, if one side loosses it wont trigger Nuclear war , the other side will silently (or not) have to take the defeat

    we had something similar in Vietnam, Etiopian conflicts issues of last century…

    and i agree with Jermofoot at least partialy,

    Religion is very important, especially when looking at ˝Muslim countries˝ in those countries, ˝Islam, not nationalis˝ becomes key ideology, a way of living and thinking
    Islam as a religious movement, and political parties which lean on Islam, will become more and more basics of political and cultural stucture in those countries

    and for resources, well the battles are being fought already, so lets say we`re in silent( if it can be said so) time of struggling for world supremacy( domination ) and the creation of a new world moral( religous ), political, social and cultural order( status )

    i think its inevitable that there will be a lot domestic turmoil in many countries( not just in poor ones like Kenya, but countries like France too-we had that famous case of ˝Burning cars˝ a few years ago.  A lot of domestic turmoils-low salaries, fast global changes, both cultural, economical, climate …

    then repression of govenments, bloodspilt…

    wars, border disputes, conventional wars, Civilan crisis, unsolved ANTARKTIKA AND ARKTIK issues…

    and then finally the clash of civilizations which is from this point inevitable, as i said earlier, it wont be nuclear war, or somethin like that, but series of political, geostrategic, economical ˝games˝ + some conventional wars, and enormous media propaganda on many sides

    i personally think that question and issues like Religion, Nationalism, Social Justice, Cultural and Historical identity, Language will be much more important considering ˝the East countries˝ then it will be issues of resources, altough issue of resources will be very important, since without them any country can hardly ˝raise itself˝ to greater level

    as from that key ˝world spots˝ will be

    Asia Minor-Kurdistani issue

    Western Asia-Armenia-Azerbeaijan issue, Armenian genocide, Armenian-Turkish relations, Azerbaijani issue( vast number of Azeri live in Iran )

    Middle East-Iran, Izrael, Libanon, Suez Canal-Egypt, Hormuz Strait-between Iran and Saudi Arabian Peninsula( dozens % of world oil exports pass thorugh this strait)

    South Asia-India-muslim relations, Pakistan, Balochistan issue-(stretches into 3 countries; Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan)

    Central Asia-Afghanistan, Rus.Fed, China, India, USA military bases

    Eastern Europe-pro European, pro Russian clash

    Southeastern Europe-similar as Eastern European but Kosovo complicates the problem,
    along with muslim issue

    Southeastern Asia-muslim issue, South Tailand, South Fillippini, Malacca strait issue

    Eastern Afica-Etiopian issue-doesnt have free access to sea, Somalia-muslim issue, Bab al Mandeb strait( between Djibouti-Jemen)

    please note that the straits are of key geostrategical importance, since them if are controlled, or denied of control can lead foreign relations to Ardent

    so, more or less cultural and civilization clash since one ˝Culture˝-and i dont mean purely on USA here-so you dont get me wrong or think i want to ˝sotonize˝ any country… not country, but one culture is implemented as ˝the right one˝ and since other cultures simply cant accept this ˝silent cultural genocide˝ it will lead to inevitable clashes

    the major world players
    -USA
    -Russian Federation and ˝pro Russian countries˝
    -China
    -India
    -Lationoamerican countries( if they act together)
    -Germany( EU)
    -Muslim countries( Arab league )
    -Iran
    -Japan

    and about Korean issue

    the Koreas will unite, in 5 years, 10 ,15-20. They will unite, thats what i think and believe will be so…

    i wrote much, maybe too much of my thoughts, but ok, its an interesting topic for me,

    in the end

    i ll pray for not having any WWIII of any kind if its possible 🙂


  • @balungaloaf:

    ok, trust me, stalin didnt let sung invade, until later, when stalin let sung invade.  sung always wanted to invade, but stalin wouldnt let him.  stalin called the shots.  if you still dont believe me, then i have to go and find sources to show you, which is a pain.

    I know that Sung went to Stalin.  I’ve read this…but I think you are mistaken as far as who was doing what.  It would have done no good for the USSR to have N. Korea overtake S. Korea.  Stalin didn’t want another major conflict…that is the important point to remember.  The Allies didn’t expect N. Korea to attack, and the USSR didn’t expect the US to counter.

    #2. the UN couldnt just let the n.koreans have a whole country to regroup in and stage invasion after invasion.  they had to go north.  kinda a no-sh*t-sherlock thing to do.

    The sensible thing to do was not broaden the conflict.  I agree that the UN shouldn’t have stood by idly, but crossing the DMZ was the wrong move, especially when they were warned not to.

    and the s.vietnamese could to protect themselves without us. they did against a 2 million man invasion force.  and we did win in vietnam.  the only way we lost was by abondoning the south.  kind of like if we were to succeed in iraq. leave, and then cut off all funding so the government collapses.  which democrats would love to do.

    I still don’t see where N.Vietnam had a force of 2 million, or where S. Vietnam repulsed anything without the US. 
    And I’m not saying we lost, just that we were fighting a losing battle.  We went into something that could not be won, and had been going for years.
    Let me ask you this…did UK “win” against Germany when defending France and the low countries?

    does this not make sense, we won, came home, and somehow got called for losing when the congress cut off funds to s.vietnam.  our congress was the only reason we lost.  screw the hippie protesters, let them think they actually mattered.

    Again, the Paris Peace Accords were supposed to be the end.  We were done.  Then N. Vietnam invaded again and it was over.  We were there for all those years and it mattered none.
    And not all protesters/anti-war peeps were hippies unless a majority of the country was at the time.  People were done with it.

    and so it wasnt a lost cause either.  we succeeded on the battlefield.  we accomplished our mission and came home.  democrats lost the war back at home well after our mission.  get over it.

    We no doubt overcame opposition militarily.  But there is no S. Vietnam.  How was that not a lost cause?  We spent so many years, lives, and money, only to have a unified Vietnam today.  We gained nothing for it = lost cause.  Even saying “we won until we left” is not worth what we gave.

    and korea, vietnam, and iraq all accomplished alot.  open a God-damn book.

    Ok, tell me what they accomplished. 
    Vietnam = unified
    Korea = still at a standstill half a century later
    Iraq = ?

  • 2007 AAR League

    it wouldnt of been a lost cost without liberals.  no liberals = success.  everytime.
    we wouldnt of lost at all if they didnt exist.  its like they wanted the mass murder from the communists against the people of the south.  and remember what we did for w.germany, japan, and s.korea.  they are very prosperous now with free societies.  we do good for people.

    and the UK got its military butt handed to them on the battlefield.  the germans mopped them up all the way to dunkirk.


  • @balungaloaf:

    it wouldnt of been a lost cost without liberals.  no liberals = success.  everytime.
    we wouldnt of lost at all if they didnt exist.  its like they wanted the mass murder from the communists against the people of the south.  and remember what we did for w.germany, japan, and s.korea.  they are very prosperous now with free societies.  we do good for people.

    Liberals have nothing to do with it.  You can’t tell me that a majority of the nation were liberals in the 70s.
    There was nothing to gain, balung.  NOTHING.  It was inevitable.  At most, we would have two Vietnams in the same position as the Koreas, and what good does that do the US or the Vietnamese?  But along with that would have been more deaths, more costs, and more instability.
    Sure, we do good.  But war is in no way good.  We prolonged a conflict that caused quite a few more deaths and injuries.  We napalmed the shit out of Vietnam and the surrounding countries.  We dropped Agent Orange all over the place and the effects are still being felt today.  Sounds like a lot of good we did.

    and the UK got its military butt handed to them on the battlefield.  the germans mopped them up all the way to dunkirk.

    That wasn’t the point.  Did they say they accomplished their mission until they evacuated at Dunkirk?  No, they don’t.  Because Hitler took France, Belgium, and the Netherlands anyway.


  • You can’t say S. korea is a did not benift from the korean war. look at south korea and its economy and its people then look at Kim JOng’s countrymen and thier economy. Then tell me the korean war was a total faliure. also s. Vietnam would be just likeas prosporous. And the whole nations of Vietnam or Korea would be so much happier if it was led by the south’s government. Yet no one is concern that the vietnamese and the north koreans are still oppressed by the iron fist of communism.


  • @cyan:

    You can’t say S. korea is a did not benift from the korean war. look at south korea and its economy and its people then look at Kim JOng’s countrymen and thier economy. Then tell me the korean war was a total faliure. also s. Vietnam would be just likeas prosporous. And the whole nations of Vietnam or Korea would be so much happier if it was led by the south’s government. Yet no one is concern that the vietnamese and the north koreans are still oppressed by the iron fist of communism.

    Sure enough.  But was it worth the conflict?  Maybe.  Vietnam was a longer standing crisis, though.

    You have to remember that we are looking back, however.  At the time, many thought they were doing the right/smartest thing.  It’s only the benefit of hindsight can we say what is what.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

39
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts