U.S troops may go to Georgia = Russia+USA **********?

[Hellsbellboy]

Originally posted by jamble7000

Originally posted by radarmind

Russia has always had a distrust of USA (They should, I don't blame them). Russia is very upset over the past Olympics. Russia in the public eye was never able to accomplish what the US did on Afghan soil. And now The US has potential of quickly wiping out Russia's problem of Chechnya rebels (with supposed Al Qaeda forces)

What have the US actually achieved in Afghanistan?! They certainly haven't been there for months trying to find and kill one man ... If I remember my history a bit (not certain) the taliban retreated extremely quickly when the Russians went in and then spent the next ten years taking pot shots from safer high ground. I see a startling similarity with the speedy retreat of the Taliban when the US moved in ... another Vietnam on the way?

The US armed forces have an alarming habit of making a meal out of nothing and problems that most competent armies in the world would take less time to win through. I'm glad I'm not in the British Army, we usually lose more men to American "friendly fire" than the enemy!

I'm not trying to stir up anything but I did feel it necessary to point out that while well equipped, the US Army on the whole are suprisingly incompetent!

How is the US Army incompetent?

And what's that friendly fire comment about? It happened in the Gulf War. Which if you can count is 1 war. So there is no usually. If I based all my opinions on one incident I would say that the British Para are incompentent cause they shoot unarmed civilians in Afghanistan. Blue on Blue happens quite alot in combat, sad fact of life.

[gerbick]

Q: and when did the US deploy troops?

A: 1965. twenty years after WW2.

Q: the average age of the SS - excluding the Allgemeine SS and Junge SS?

A: 24-28 year old norm for foot soldiers. even older for generals and logistics specialists. so... let's say 34 years old + 20 = close to 60 years old by 1965.

that's how I figure.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by gerbick
Q: and when did the US deploy troops?

A: 1965. twenty years after WW2.

Q: the average age of the SS - excluding the Allgemeine SS?

A: 24-28 foot soldiers. older for generals and logistics specialists. so... let's say 34 years old + 20 = close to 60 years old by 1965.

that's how I figure.

I said the French used the SS. not the U.S.

[Andrew Kidoo]

Originally posted by gerbick
you vote anti-nuclear. but I'm talking chemical/biological, et al aforementioned war item/socio-economic statements.

I guess your country is unlike any other in the world. they disclose everything, right?

Yeah, we'd just as likely go shoot our-selves in the foot, as soon as have to even contemplate doin' it to "a whole bunch of others" first.

[gerbick]

andrew kiddoo. what country are you from?

if you don't mind me asking.

[david petley]

in the chronology mentioned above, I am curious about this entry -
1979
Western European countries and non-communist Asian nations support U.S.-led embargo against Vietnam, in protest against invasion of Cambodia.

Has anyone got any info on why this was so? The Pol Pot regime was one of the most bloodthirsty in history and they were committing genocide against their own people in a way that Germany never did in the WWII period. Vietnam were the good guys in that little exercise.
Why didn't the West get involved there, like they did in the Iraq crisis when Saddam was killing kurds?
Could oil have be the deciding factor rather than a high moral ground??

david p.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by david petley
in the chronology mentioned above, I am curious about this entry -
1979
Western European countries and non-communist Asian nations support U.S.-led embargo against Vietnam, in protest against invasion of Cambodia.

Has anyone got any info on why this was so? The Pol Pot regime was one of the most bloodthirsty in history and they were committing genocide against their own people in a way that Germany never did in the WWII period. Vietnam were the good guys in that little exercise.
Why didn't the West get involved there, like they did in the Iraq crisis when Saddam was killing kurds?
Could oil have be the deciding factor rather than a high moral ground??

david p.

I think it was a communist vs west thing. Could have been a grudge agianst vietnam. But money has to do with everything. and oil is money (but not for much longer).

[gerbick]

not one clue.

[david petley]

Originally posted by gerbick
Q: and when did the US deploy troops?

A: 1965. twenty years after WW2.

you are right, they did deploy troops then but their involvement started earlier -

June, 1954
The CIA establishes a military mission in Saigon. Bao Dai selects Ngo Dinh Diem as prime minster of his government.

[david petley]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar

The french knew how to deal with veitnam

I can't see how this is the case, they got their asses whumped by the Vietnamese and it was pretty much the end for them as a colonial power.

david p.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by david petley

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar

The french knew how to deal with veitnam

I can't see how this is the case, they got their asses whumped by the Vietnamese and it was pretty much the end for them as a colonial power.

david p.

well at the moment in the thread we were talking about military ineffectiveness.

I think i was starting to make a point about the attempt to conquer or occupy a foriegn land that does not want to be occupied. The Occupying country most resort to awful tactics.

Had the SS officers behaved in vietnam the way the way they did in WWII I think vietnam would still be a french territory.

i need to get my very own sarcasm tag

oh thanks for the links on Vietnam.

[Visionray]

Originally posted by david petley
in the chronology mentioned above, I am curious about this entry -
1979
Western European countries and non-communist Asian nations support U.S.-led embargo against Vietnam, in protest against invasion of Cambodia.

Has anyone got any info on why this was so? The Pol Pot regime was one of the most bloodthirsty in history and they were committing genocide against their own people in a way that Germany never did in the WWII period. Vietnam were the good guys in that little exercise.
Why didn't the West get involved there, like they did in the Iraq crisis when Saddam was killing kurds?
Could oil have be the deciding factor rather than a high moral ground??

david p.

David you're right. The Khmer Rouge was one of the bloodiest genocides ever committed. I think the reason the U.S. didnt get involved was because the conflict was contained within the cambodian border, and didnt harm U.S. interests.

The situation in Vietnam was very much against U.S. interests.

I'll look up more on this because this is an interesting topic. People always forget about Khmer Rouge.

Like Ive said before David. The U.S. never gets involved based on moral eptitude. Its always out of self interests, just like any other government on earth.

edited for spelling
[Edited by Visionray on 02-28-2002 at 03:07 PM]

[Andrew Kidoo]

Originally posted by gerbick
andrew kiddoo. what country are you from?

1 clue?

I'm like half the world (the under 30's outside of the U-S-A) who finds such a question hard to answer without - at the same time - choosing sides, as it were.
<<<FLAGS EVERYWHERE>>>

try J. ;O)
[Edited by Andrew Kidoo on 03-01-2002 at 11:29 PM]

[gerbick]

Japan? I lived in Osaka, Tokyo, and Sendai before.

MAN I miss it!!

[gerbick]

Originally posted by Andrew Kidoo
..miss what exactly?

I only gave it up koz I was sorta living in Tokyo and expected to commute to Yokohama every day.

{BTW, haven't i seen you ova at WH.com or NG.com?}

you most likely saw me over at WH. (ng.com? who's that?)

Wow, that's a commute.

[david petley]

Originally posted by Visionray


Like Ive said before David. The U.S. never gets involved based on moral eptitude. Its always out of self interests, just like any other government on earth.

and that is the really sad thing.

i'm not picking out the US in this response, I think that any government driven by economics rather than compassion is a great tragedy for humankind, whether they be the current batch of good guys or the current batch of bad guys.

It may be naive of me to feel that way, but I will happily choose compassion over cash anytime.
damned old hippies
david p.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by david petley


i'm not picking out the US in this response, I think that any government driven by economics rather than compassion is a great tragedy for humankind, whether they be the current batch of good guys or the current batch of bad guys.

It may be naive of me to feel that way, but I will happily choose compassion over cash anytime.
damned old hippies
david p.

I agree but who decides what is moral and what is not. Was genocide of the Jewish people in Germany Moral? No, but at the time to the german people it was.

I think some democratic governments will persue the moral path, but there are so many factors. A moral action can result in a war between 2 nations with different idiologies.

old hippies are usually wise hippies

[Andrew Kidoo]

Originally posted by gerbick
..miss what exactly? Wow, that's a commute.

Which brings us back to the co$t of the J-banks PLAYING with ppls LAND PRICES (forcing a whole nation to commute - bekos they also own the trains btw!!!)

eg.
I like watching the glee the Business News presenters have when they announce sum Drug companies "increased profits" - like its a really kewl thing!

(rlol)

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by Andrew Kidoo

I like watching the glee the Business News presenters have when they announce sum Drug companies "increased profits" - like its a really kewl thing!

(rlol)

research is expensive. High profits will increase the cash flow into a company. the company can use this to higher more/better scientist. More better scientists means better drugs.

I presonally do not trust the drug pushing medical field

[david petley]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar

I agree but who decides what is moral and what is not. Was genocide of the Jewish people in Germany Moral? No, but at the time to the german people it was.

I think some democratic governments will persue the moral path, but there are so many factors. A moral action can result in a war between 2 nations with different idiologies.

old hippies are usually wise hippies

I think it was more a matter of the German people being unaware of the genocide being carried out. They (German public) were told that jews, gypsies, etc were being relocated out of Germany and no-one ever came cack from the death camps to tell them the reality. They only found out at the end of the war, like most people.

Propaganda would have kept most excesses by the Authorities out of the public eye, or very successfully justified it, as happens now regularly in the West, where we are told that killing innocents in places like Afghanistan and Iraq (pick a country, any country) is necessary to protect our way of life.

david p.