[Mikolaj]

[Spin]

The US hardly has a stirling post-WW2 record:
- Korea, stalemate
- Vietnam, disaster
- Iraq, so far, disaster
All of these have proven enormously expensive, and by the way, France's getting her ass kicked in Vietnam was, at least, paid for by the USA.

Grenada, Gulf War and Panama all successful military operations. Also the US never lost a battle in Vietnam, and had it not been for the civilian element at home would have been a military success.

[Ombrageux]

Spin - beating Panama and Grenada are not notable, though the first Gulf War is. Vietnam was lost by any reasonable definition, enough with this "stab in the back by civilians" garbage. Winning a war is not not losing a battle. Winning a war is ending a war. Sure, the US could have kept half a million troops in Vietnam indefinitely, just as the US can keep 100k in Iraq today indefinitely, the question is, is this worth the enormous financial costs and will they ever pay off? The answer, in Vietnam was clearly no, it is probably the same in Iraq.

(and on the side, by your definition Germany never "lost" WW1, they could have fought on, and France never "lost" in Algeria, they could have fought on)

[Oblisk]

[Yeddi]

Fuck that was funny Oblisk

[Zagadka]

Actually, it's the other way around bud.

Whose revolution came first?

America's.

Do you have any idea where the ideas behind the American Revolution and constitution came from?

[Boondock Saint]

Do you have any idea where the ideas behind the American Revolution and constitution came from?

American Revolutionary Era ... 1763 to, arguably, 1783.

The French Revolution 1789–1799

*Yawn*

Numbers > rhetoric.

[Attila The Nun]

Spin - beating Panama and Grenada are not notable, though the first Gulf War is. Vietnam was lost by any reasonable definition, enough with this "stab in the back by civilians" garbage. Winning a war is not not losing a battle. Winning a war is ending a war. Sure, the US could have kept half a million troops in Vietnam indefinitely, just as the US can keep 100k in Iraq today indefinitely, the question is, is this worth the enormous financial costs and will they ever pay off? The answer, in Vietnam was clearly no, it is probably the same in Iraq.

South Vietnam was still on the map in 1973. We achieved our goals. How is this a stunning defeat?

[Ombrageux]

South Vietnam was still on the map in 1973. We achieved our goals. How is this a stunning defeat?

Whoop de frackin' do. The country collapsed 3 years later. 3 years. (and no, it wasn't because Nixon was denied sending even more arms there by Congress, that was just a little theatrics so he could blame Congress for the debacle)

If that was the "achievement of our goals", then we could leave Iraq in 2008, have Iran annex it in 2011 and Bush could still claim it was a "mission accomplished".

Bull sh!t.

[TROI]

Sorry could someone fill me in on what exactly it is that Mel Gibson has done? I don't think anyone cares over here so it hasn't made the news.

[Rodion]

Sorry could someone fill me in on what exactly it is that Mel Gibson has done? I don't think anyone cares over here so it hasn't made the news.

It made Gorkiy: he got arrested for drunk driving and started ranting about Jews. Same old, same old.

[Kylie]

click here to read

[The American Lion]

[Le Rouge]

Since when are the Democrats extreme anything? They represent post-politics at its finiest.

[QatzelOk]

Looks like that Democrat war plane might never get off the ground. And heaven knows, there's still tons of nations to bomb.

[Rodion]

[Le Rouge]

[Attila The Nun]

Whoop de frackin' do. The country collapsed 3 years later. 3 years. (and no, it wasn't because Nixon was denied sending even more arms there by Congress, that was just a little theatrics so he could blame Congress for the debacle)

If that was the "achievement of our goals", then we could leave Iraq in 2008, have Iran annex it in 2011 and Bush could still claim it was a "mission accomplished".

There's a difference in both goals. Our goal in Vietnam was to protect South Vietnam. Our goal in Iraq is to create a lasting democratic state. Different objectives, different points of failure.

[Ombrageux]

There's a difference in both goals. Our goal in Vietnam was to protect South Vietnam. Our goal in Iraq is to create a lasting democratic state. Different objectives, different points of failure.

To create a lasting democratic Iraq and a lasting independent south Vietnam. In that sense, and that is the real sense, the Vietnam War was a failure. (unless the goal was to destroy Vietnam, which was handily achieved)

I suspect the Iraq War will be a similar failure, though I hope it won't be.

[Mikolaj]