US drone have murdered 1000's

[Harleyman]

Getting a little upset are we? :

 

Expert?

 

No, but I know this, my Yankee doodle dandy macho man, America got itself involved in a war in Vietnam which if it had any sense whatsoever it would have avoided at any cost.

 

Any objective overview of what took place at Dien Bien Phu between the 13th March and 7th May 1954 should have told the USA that they were on to a hiding to nothing.

 

The English - and latterly the Americans - like to insult the French with claims of their cowardice.

 

All this does is show how ignorant and thick a lot of English and Americans are.

 

The French are the most successful military nation in Europe as regards wars fought, wars won.

 

If the French couldn't handle it there was no chance the Yanks could, but of course the Yanks think they know better than everyone and that overwhelming force is the answer to everything.

 

Well they learned a lesson there didn't they?

 

And as I said,what did it matter in the end? All that killing and dying for what? What did it achieve other than to show the largest military power that ever existed - but by no means the best - could be defeated, which was a little humiliating for a country which thinks so highly of itself.

 

What is your point about me being the wrong age for conscription, what's that got to do with anything?

 

Of course I'd have done as I was told, so what?

 

And Kenya, Cyprus and Aden were other examples of colonial interference and balls ups that ended badly.

 

As for keyboard warrior are you losing it?

 

I'm the one that has stated that I wouldn't volunteer to fight unless I considered the cause just, whilst you're the" kill em all, use drones " whether or not they are a direct threat to you.

 

The only keyboard warrior on here is you.

 

Oh and try cutting down on the John Wayne films, too many Pilgrim, Dude and High Falutin's creeping in.

 

If 20/20 hindsight was a sound basis for any argument there was you would be the world's top debating champion. You annoyingly and consistently use this method in every discussion you take part in.

 

I'm not getting into Vietnam except to say that the war could have been won had the US policy not been to fight a war with one hand tied behind it's back.

 

Canada failed me in it's promises. They lied at Canada House in London. Told me I would have steady work as a carpenter and plumber but didn't tell me that it was seasonal so I got laid off when the snow came down and to make ends meet ended up working as a friggin' janitor. I enlisted in the Marine Corps in New York so I could get a visa to permanently live in the US. Vietnam was no part of that. I wouldn't have been able to find the place on a map at that time so lets stop banging on about the subject

 

Back to the thread

Edited April 8, 2015 by Harleyman

[mjw47]

If 20/20 hindsight was a sound basis for any argument there was you would be the world's top debating champion. You annoyingly and consistently use this method in every discussion you take part in.

 

 

Back to the thread

 

What's hindsight got to do with the French being defeated in 1954 and the Americans deciding to get involved in 1955?

 

All the evidence was there which showed that it wasn't going to be easy and all they had to do was take note.

 

Instead they decided they knew better and would succeed where France had failed.

 

If you find references to what took place previously as a guide as to what was likely to happen in the future annoying then perhaps debating is not your thing?

 

Tony Blair had all the evidence of history available to him before he took the decision to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

On every previous occasion protracted war had cost lives and money and had ended in less than satisfactory outcomes, with the areas returning to their previous state in a short time.

 

Back to thread.

 

My point regarding drones is that they cause more hatred and recruits for terrorists by their inaccurate 'collateral damage' and the method of operation which whatever spin you try to place on it is both cowardly and murderous.

 

' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes'

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2014%2Fnov%2F24%2F-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147&ei=cIglVbGZLYSvac66gagN&usg=AFQjCNE_FI9htgpz7FR7GVtPMJCPuCMccw&bvm=bv.90237346,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

Care to excuse and justify that?

[Harleyman]

What's hindsight got to do with the French being defeated in 1954 and the Americans deciding to get involved in 1955?

 

All the evidence was there which showed that it wasn't going to be easy and all they had to do was take note.

 

Instead they decided they knew better and would succeed where France had failed.

 

If you find references to what took place previously as a guide as to what was likely to happen in the future annoying then perhaps debating is not your thing?

 

Tony Blair had all the evidence of history available to him before he took the decision to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

On every previous occasion protracted war had cost lives and money and had ended in less than satisfactory outcomes, with the areas returning to their previous state in a short time.

 

Back to thread.

 

My point regarding drones is that they cause more hatred and recruits for terrorists by their inaccurate 'collateral damage' and the method of operation which whatever spin you try to place on it is both cowardly and murderous.

 

' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes'

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2014%2Fnov%2F24%2F-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147&ei=cIglVbGZLYSvac66gagN&usg=AFQjCNE_FI9htgpz7FR7GVtPMJCPuCMccw&bvm=bv.90237346,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

Care to excuse and justify that?

 

You're managing to make me annoyed with the Vietnam subject but here goes one last time.

 

The French army in Vietnam had nothing to compare with what the US Forces fielded just over ten years later. North Vietnam could have been pounded into submission within a couple of years if the Air Force had been allowed to use all it's arsenal to full effect. Instead Johnson went limp minded and actually started to choose targets himself which achieved nothing. Faint hearts ruled where Curtis LeMay should have ruled.

 

Nuther big mistake putting Cambodia off limits to hot pursuit which allowed Charlie to survive, regroup and come back fighting. By the time Nixon squelched that it was already too late.

 

No one should go to war if they're not determined to win by any means necessary. War is bad enough but made even worse by leaders who fight it with one eye on the election polls and the other on what the press might say

 

Some misguided individuals believe today that using the A-Bomb on Japan was a major crime. Course it wasn't. It finally ended the war

 

It was a great pity that the A-bomb wasn't around in 1942. Two or three on Nazi Germany including Berlin and wiping out just about all of the Nazi big wigs and leaders would have brought the war to a screeching halt very shortly afterwards. Millions of Jewish lives saved, millions of Russian lives. military and civilian saved, millions of lives of other nationalities saved, and thousands and thousands or American and British lives to boot

Edited April 8, 2015 by Harleyman

[Timeh]

.

 

I'm not getting into Vietnam except to say that the war could have been won had the US policy not been to fight a war with one hand tied behind it's back.

 

 

You really are the American Dreamer. You had no business messing with Vietnam and rightly got your noses bloodied. You also lied to get involved in the first place. Some of the stunts your nation has pulled are disgusting!

[mjw47]

 

The French army in Vietnam had nothing to compare with what the US Forces fielded just over ten years later.

 

Some misguided individuals believe today that using the A-Bomb on Japan was a major crime. Course it wasn't. It finally ended the war

 

It was a great pity that the A-bomb wasn't around in 1942. Two or three on Nazi Germany including Berlin and wiping out just about all of the Nazi big wigs and leaders would have brought the war to a screeching halt very shortly afterwards. Millions of Jewish lives saved, millions of Russian lives. military and civilian saved, millions of lives of other nationalities saved, and thousands and thousands or American and British lives to boot

 

The Americans had nothing to compare with the French fighting ability either.

 

The problem with Yanks is they are utterly enthralled by technology and the use of overwhelming firepower, believing it to be the answer to everything, well sometimes it is the answer to somethings, but it's never the answer to everything.

 

Like you and your A bomb solution.

 

Yes, brilliant suggestion, devastate one of the great cities of the world and several more, kill hundreds of thousands including women, children, Jews. Allied prisoners of war, and poison several areas in central mainland Europe.

 

Add in ongoing deaths and genetic defects from radiation poisoning and yes it would have been a wonderful solution.

 

Had they wanted to the US could have called a temporary truce and demonstrated the bomb to the Japanese high command and then issued an ultimatum.

 

But that wouldn't have suited their purpose, they wanted to demonstrate ( especially to the Russians ) that not only did they have the bomb, they were ruthless enough to use it.

 

Now back on topic.

 

I notice that you avoided giving your view on ' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes'.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2014%2Fnov%2F24%2F-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147&ei=cIglVbGZLYSvac66gagN&usg=AFQjCNE_FI9htgpz7FR7GVtPMJCPuCMccw&bvm=bv.90237346,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

Any chance you'll give an opinion this time?

[Alan Ladd]

War is messy. Do not be too opinionated one way or the other. I think you are all making a fundamental mistake in comparing "wars" such as Vietnam with what is happening now.

 

The "enemy" is not clearly defined as it was in years gone by. A significant "5th column" is within our society with many recruits teetering on the edge.

 

Frankly after what we did to the Middle East following the criminal activities of Bush and Blair we should not be surprised that people whose lives have been ruined seek revenge.

 

That being the case we should stop contemplating what has gone before but consider what we must do to protect ourselves.

[Harleyman]

The Americans had nothing to compare with the French fighting ability either.

 

The problem with Yanks is they are utterly enthralled by technology and the use of overwhelming firepower, believing it to be the answer to everything, well sometimes it is the answer to somethings, but it's never the answer to everything.

 

Like you and your A bomb solution.

 

Yes, brilliant suggestion, devastate one of the great cities of the world and several more, kill hundreds of thousands including women, children, Jews. Allied prisoners of war, and poison several areas in central mainland Europe.

 

Add in ongoing deaths and genetic defects from radiation poisoning and yes it would have been a wonderful solution.

 

Had they wanted to the US could have called a temporary truce and demonstrated the bomb to the Japanese high command and then issued an ultimatum.

But that wouldn't have suited their purpose, they wanted to demonstrate ( especially to the Russians ) that not only did they have the bomb, they were ruthless enough to use it.

 

Now back on topic.

 

I notice that you avoided giving your view on ' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes'.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2014%2Fnov%2F24%2F-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147&ei=cIglVbGZLYSvac66gagN&usg=AFQjCNE_FI9htgpz7FR7GVtPMJCPuCMccw&bvm=bv.90237346,d.d2s&cad=rja

 

Any chance you'll give an opinion this time?

 

Don't make me laugh ! Get real. It wouldn't have stood a chance. They couldn't get the Japs to surrender even after their cities had been bombed flat, their navy and air force almost wiped out and untold numbers of their civilians killed and wounded. The Jap military high command even tried to oust the Emperor of all people after they discovered he had made overtures of peace to the allies after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings and you talk about a truce.... joker

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2015 at 15:27 ----------

 

War is messy. Do not be too opinionated one way or the other. I think you are all making a fundamental mistake in comparing "wars" such as Vietnam with what is happening now.

 

The "enemy" is not clearly defined as it was in years gone by. A significant "5th column" is within our society with many recruits teetering on the edge.

 

Frankly after what we did to the Middle East following the criminal activities of Bush and Blair we should not be surprised that people whose lives have been ruined seek revenge.

 

That being the case we should stop contemplating what has gone before but consider what we must do to protect ourselves.

 

The trouble with Muslim extremists and terrorists doesn't date from the US-UK invasion of Iraq. It was already in existence long before that, encouraged and funded by the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini and his regime and dating back to the late 70s

[mjw47]

Don't make me laugh ! Get real. It wouldn't have stood a chance. They couldn't get the Japs to surrender even after their cities had been bombed flat, their navy and air force almost wiped out and untold numbers of their civilians killed and wounded. The Jap military high command even tried to oust the Emperor of all people after they discovered he had made overtures of peace to the allies after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings and you talk about a truce.... joker

 

Offering a truce would have made America look magnanimous and would have done away with all of the hand wringing and criticism which happened afterwards.

 

The Japs were led by some serious fanatics, so yes they would probably have turned it down ,but America would have emerged with the image that they so carefully try to project to the world, the men in the white hats riding to the rescue BS.

 

Now, you were the one who suggested returning to the thread at post 121 above, since which you have avoided doing so.

 

So what is your opinion on the drones you love so much and ' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes' ?

 

My contention has always been that the use of unmanned drones to kill with the inevitable ' collateral damage' which it would entail will make matters worse and is simply playing into the terrorists hands.

 

Any views?

[tinfoilhat]

Offering a truce would have made America look magnanimous and would have done away with all of the hand wringing and criticism which happened afterwards.

 

The Japs were led by some serious fanatics, so yes they would probably have turned it down ,but America would have emerged with the image that they so carefully try to project to the world, the men in the white hats riding to the rescue BS.

 

Now, you were the one who suggested returning to the thread at post 121 above, since which you have avoided doing so.

 

So what is your opinion on the drones you love so much and ' 41 men targeted but 1,147 killed by drone strikes' ?

 

My contention has always been that the use of unmanned drones to kill with the inevitable ' collateral damage' which it would entail will make matters worse and is simply playing into the terrorists hands.

 

Any views?

 

Would it have been better if we had sacrificed lots of our troops/airmen? If we had, and considering g where these people embed themselves, do you think there would be less colataral damage? Or should we leave them to plan the next 9/11 or bomb and kill people in their own countries? Do we know how many people these 41 targets have killed or planned to kill?

[Timeh]

 

The trouble with Muslim extremists and terrorists doesn't date from the US-UK invasion of Iraq. It was already in existence long before that, encouraged and funded by the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini and his regime and dating back to the late 70s

 

That would be the guy you americans with the help of our intelligence service put in power, right?