Yep, it's official: France is next after Iraq

[Guest Powerplay]

Blippity blah-blah. Excuses are like assholes - everyone has one and they all stink.

A blindman could take one quick glance at that war and see that the US wasn't listening to the anti-war movement at all. The outcry started 10 YEARS before the war was ended.

We LOST, and anything else is just revisionist bullshit espoused to help people sleep at night despite knowing that we lost in spectacular fashion.

Wow, it's Rob Johnstone, the liberal version! We were winning with Kennedy, and even though Johnson screwed it up well enough the U.S. would have eventually won. You say a blind man could have seen that we were gonna lose the war, but how in God's name could they beat us? We could have gone forever if we wanted to, and there was no way that the North Vietnamese could have eliminated our presence. Had we stuck around we would have won... eventually. It would have taken quite a long time, but the Peace movement (Which really gained force during the Johnson administration) finally won out, and the war became far too unpopular to continue. That's the only reason we lost.

 

We lost in spectacular fashion? Jesus, man, how much do you really KNOW about the Vietnam war? We had 50,000+ dead in 10 years. Sounds horrible? In Korea we lost the same amount in 3 years. The North Vietnamese lost 500,000 people. Ten times as much. We held back the North Vietnamese back well enough until we completed Vietnamization. That's when everything went to hell, and that can't be blamed on us. Did we lose? Yeah, I'll accept that to an extent. A spectacular loss? Holy hell no.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

We could have gone forever if we wanted to

 

But it turns out that the North Vietnamese weren't really that villainous. Not to mention that the plans and reasons for being there weren't too clear.

 

It didn't help that the South Vietnamese government had their own tyrants.

[Guest JMA]

Under Kennedy the US was winning the Vietnam War.

 

It wasn't until Johnson became President and it became a defensive war did thing start to go wrong.

Didn't Kennedy plan to pull out of Vietnam? It's a shame he died. His potential was limitless.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Under Kennedy the US was winning the Vietnam War.

 

It wasn't until Johnson became President and it became a defensive war did thing start to go wrong.

Didn't Kennedy plan to pull out of Vietnam? It's a shame he died. His potential was limitless.

The problem with Vietnam has nothing to do with Kennedy. Kennedy was content to keep it simply an advisory conflict. The fuck-ups began when Johnson decided he didn't want to be the first American President to lose a war, so he decided not to allow South Vietnam to fight their own war.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Didn't Kennedy plan to pull out of Vietnam? It's a shame he died. His potential was limitless.

Not really, he didn't do shit during his term and there's no reason to believe he would have had he lived. He couldn't get much done with the Senate & House which liked him about as much as the one from 4 years ago liked Clinton.

[Guest Powerplay]

Powerplay: No, I'd doubt that Vietnam would have been won by the American troops. You can't conduct a war if people are so opposed to it that they'll elect leaders who will end it. How long would it have taken to win? about 5 years? not to mention that any 'victory' would involve guerrilla resistance, or the possible "Chinese volunteers storm the border" scenario.

I agree and disagree. It wasn't a losing war, though, just an unpopular war. We were winning the ground war, losing the PR war. Hell, by the time Nixon took over I think even I would have been against it's continuation. It would have taken too long (At least, the way we were conducting the war) to defeat the North, and no one wanted to wait that long. The North Vietnamese didn't defeat us, but did an incredible job of just holding out.

 

Guerilla Warfare? You mean what they had been conducting beforehand? Specify this a little more. If it's about the Viet Cong, they were destroyed during the Tet Offensive as an effective fighting force.

 

The Chinese would NEVER have stormed the border. The Vietnamese and the Chinese have never gotten along, and they have an enemity that goes back into Chinese Dynasty times. That's not a scenario.

 

The French are not very fond of supporting military action that they see as 'aggressive', most likely because of the whole 'invaded by an aggressive power twice' thing.

 

I doubt it. It's not as if we are invading an upstanding Republic here, but rather a tyrannical dictator. Comparing it to France being invaded is not a good comparison. France has massive oil deals with Saddam, and a lot is flying around about them supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. Right now they are passed the point of no return with their "Delay and Veto" strategy and they simply can't back out without being seriously embarrassed.

 

The French aren't really needed for any sort of Army backup, and it's flawed to compare the Americans running the Germans out of France to the French helping the Americans run a guy out of Iraq. It's not the same, it's America giving France a free dinner and then insisting that they make America dinner in return.

 

While they shouldn't give us the free dinner, they shouldn't be actively trying to embarrass us and thwart our atttempts to get anything through the UN. I would be fine with them if they would just abstain. That's respectful enough.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Under Kennedy the US was winning the Vietnam War.

 

It wasn't until Johnson became President and it became a defensive war did thing start to go wrong.

Didn't Kennedy plan to pull out of Vietnam? It's a shame he died. His potential was limitless.

Not really, he didn't do shit during his term and there's no reason to believe he would have had he lived. He couldn't get much done with the Senate & House which liked him about as much as the one from 4 years ago liked Clinton.

That's not entirely true. He started the Peace Corps, endorsed Civil Rights, and kicked NASA in the ass and told them to get to the moon. He was almost assuresedly going to get a second term, so it's diificult to judge his presidency as a whole.

 

But, yeah most of his programs were passed after he died out of remorse.

[Guest Powerplay]

We could have gone forever if we wanted to

 

But it turns out that the North Vietnamese weren't really that villainous. Not to mention that the plans and reasons for being there weren't too clear.

 

It didn't help that the South Vietnamese government had their own tyrants.

I agree. We didn't really have any reason to be there, and the South Vietnamese Government at the time reeked of Nepotism. Bad reasons = Public getting more and more frustrating as the war goes on.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Eh, we were so afraid of 'dem damn Commies' that we needed to get involved.

 

Heh heh heh.

 

It's hard to say that with a straight face.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Guerilla Warfare? You mean what they had been conducting beforehand? Specify this a little more.

 

No.. Guerrila war in North Vietnam as well as South Vietnam.

 

If it's about the Viet Cong, they were destroyed during the Tet Offensive as an effective fighting force.

 

I'm sure the North Vietnamese would have some people willing to fight like the Viet Cong did. It is very tricky to fight an enemy that is elusive.

 

The Chinese would NEVER have stormed the border. The Vietnamese and the Chinese have never gotten along, and they have an enemity that goes back into Chinese Dynasty times. That's not a scenario.

 

Wrong!

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/vietnam.htm

 

"As the Vietnam War intensified in 1965 and 1966, so, too, did the Chinese commitment to the survival of North Vietnam. By the spring of the latter year, some 50,000 Chinese troops served in North Vietnam, a total that may have tripled before China began to withdraw its forces in 1968. Until President Johnson limited ROLLING THUNDER to southern North Vietnam, effective April 1, 1968, China gave refuge to North Vietnamese fighters when airfields in the North came under aerial attack, and reports surfaced of Chinese pilots flying North Vietnamese interceptors. During this period of involvement, China made no secret of its sympathy for the Hanoi government; prudence therefore required that the Johnson administration consider the possibility of further Chinese intervention. Concern that China might react as it had fifteen years earlier in Korea argued powerfully for relying on air power rather than invasion to convince Hanoi to call off the war in the South."

 

If China never got along with Vietnam, then they wouldn't have sent troops in to help them, nor would they have hosted troops there until 1968. It was serious enough of a scenario back then.

 

France has massive oil deals with Saddam, and a lot is flying around about them supplying Iraq with chemical weapons.

 

Sources on the 'chemical weapons' claims?

 

they shouldn't be actively trying to embarrass us and thwart our atttempts to get anything through the UN.

 

When it comes to embarassing us, how would they be doing that? by mentioning their opposition? is opposition equal to embarassment? When it comes to the UN, even without a French/Russian veto, the SC may not even have a majority for the resolution. I doubt the US will pull for a vote if they know they will lose it. But it's not like the vote will be 13-2 with France and Russia putting the veto down.

 

When it comes to War. The passage of a declaration of war on Iraq by Congress (although I understand they can do it under the "President can strike countries if he feels like it" tradition). Remember, Congress has the power to declare War, they have not used it since December 1941.

[Guest SP-1]

Under Kennedy the US was winning the Vietnam War.

 

It wasn't until Johnson became President and it became a defensive war did thing start to go wrong.

Didn't Kennedy plan to pull out of Vietnam? It's a shame he died. His potential was limitless.

Not really, he didn't do shit during his term and there's no reason to believe he would have had he lived. He couldn't get much done with the Senate & House which liked him about as much as the one from 4 years ago liked Clinton.

That's not entirely true. He started the Peace Corps, endorsed Civil Rights, and kicked NASA in the ass and told them to get to the moon. He was almost assuresedly going to get a second term, so it's diificult to judge his presidency as a whole.

 

But, yeah most of his programs were passed after he died out of remorse.

And there's that whole Cuban Missile Crisis thing. Just sayin'.

[Guest Powerplay]

Eh, we were so afraid of 'dem damn Commies' that we needed to get involved.

 

Heh heh heh.

 

It's hard to say that with a straight face.

Yeah, I'd say that sums it up . After watching Stalin basically take over Eastern Europe in one swipe, the U.S. was determined not to let the same happen with Mao in Asia.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

the U.S. was determined not to let the same happen with Mao in Asia.

 

Although Cambodia and Laos did have Communist governments in the 70s and 80s (I think Laos still has a dictator)

[Guest Powerplay]

the U.S. was determined not to let the same happen with Mao in Asia.

 

Although Cambodia and Laos did have Communist governments in the 70s and 80s (I think Laos still has a dictator)

Well, do you think the public would have stood for another war after they had just gotten done with Vietnam?

[Guest Powerplay]

No.. Guerrila war in North Vietnam as well as South Vietnam.

I'm sure there would have been some sort of rebel resistance, but basically like the terrorist groups we see all around us.

 

I'm sure the North Vietnamese would have some people willing to fight like the Viet Cong did. It is very tricky to fight an enemy that is elusive.

 

Guerilla Warfare is always tricky to combat, but it's not like those fighters were invincible. Consider the training and generally substandard equipment they'd also get.

 

Wrong!

 

Hmph. I suppose you called me a little, but I know that they do have serious culture conflicts between the two. They aren't active friends, but more enemies united against America. China wouldn't want us near their borders anyways. Would they send troops to a fledgeling Communist Nation despite their emenities? Perhaps? A full fledged invasion on their part? I'm iffy there. Though with Korea, I suppose it was a possibility, though I have to note that they themselves started pulling out in 1968, so I have doubts of that scenario.

 

Sources on the 'chemical weapons' claims?

 

I've seen it both on my local news and a few of the bigger ones in the last week or so. I only said rumors, though. Nothing has been proved yet, though this would certainly explain why the French are so opposed to any resolution that the U.S. or British would want to pass.

 

Robbie, I don't see why they should threaten to Veto anything that comes on the table from the U.S. or the British that involves a timetable of sorts. They should at least allow us to get something out, even if it is short of a war.

[Guest Vyce]

How about helping us get our independence?

To which I thank them.

 

But that was what? Over 225 years ago?

 

What have they done for us LATELY.

 

Oh, try and fuck us over, I remember now.

 

Back to the boycott - I forgot the numbers, but I believe it's something like around 19 billion that they earn from us. We buy a lot more of their shit than they do of ours. Most of those exports are food products. The French economy is sluggish enough that if enough Americans boycott French products, it will hurt them in the long run. How much, I don't know. But some damage will be done.

[Guest MrRant]

I am not suprised by the French. They have been a cowardly people since the Revolution and deserved to be run over by Hitler for surrendering. You fight till the last man is dead.

 

At least Americans would not have surrendered.

[Guest Tim]

The US didn't go into Europe with the goal of liberating France, that's just something that happened along the way (mainly because France is the best landing ground for an army in Western Europe, somewhere like Spain has too many mountains). The US military objective in Europe was to defeat Germany and take Berlin. Liberating western Europe was something that sort of came with the package. Contrast this to the Gulf War, where the objective was clearly to liberate Kuwait. Had the objective been to take down Iraq, the army would have gone all the way to Bagdahd and not pulled out when they did.

 

I really do laugh when people speak derisively about France surrendering during WW2. The US never saw the Wehrmacht at the height of its powers (the begining of the war), had they been in France's position they would have done exactly the same thing. France was hopelessly outclassed by a larger, more well-equiped, well-trained army with far superior generals. Germany's army was so good they almost managed to win the war despite Hitler's stupidity.

1. The thing was, France actually fought against the Allies after 1940, in campaigns in North Africa and the Middle East. So they weren't making the best of a bad situation, they were helping the Germans fight the Allies. They also helped the Japanese in campaigns in Indo-China. They supplied naval bases in Madagascar to the Japanese so they could intercept Allied shipping coming through the Suez Canal. So yeah, we have reason to be pissed with them.

 

2. China and Vietnam actually went to war in the late 70's, and China kicked their ass until Charlie surrendered.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Since we're on the france topic, a French golfer is getting heckled at tournaments:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1623EST0574.DTL

 

(03-15) 13:23 PST PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. (AP) --

 

Two federal agents and a police officer provided French golfer Thomas Levet increased security at the Honda Classic, protecting him against possible threats.

 

Levet didn't ask for protection, but PGA Tour officials afforded him added security because a few fans shouted insults at him during last Saturday's third round of the Ford Championship in Miami.

 

France, Russia and Germany have led opposition to military action against Iraq and blocked President's Bush attempt to set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm or face war.

 

"They were saying things I didn't quite catch, but it wasn't funny," Levet told The Palm Beach Post. "It was insulting."

 

Security officials advised Levet to not respond to hecklers at the Honda Classic. In Miami, he countered the antagonists with a sarcastic clap.

 

Even though Levet is French, the Paris-born golfer was listed on the pairing sheet as playing out of England, where he has a home. But on the first tee Thursday and Friday, he was introduced as "Thomas Levet of France."

 

"There was no problem at all," Levet said.

 

Levet followed an opening 3-under 69 with an even-par 72 Friday, missing the 6 under cut by three strokes.

 

Tour officials had planned to provide the three-person security team throughout the tournament.

 

Wearing ordinary clothing, the police officer and the federal agents blended into the crowd -- even though they walked inside the ropes.

 

The tour routinely provides extra security for Tiger Woods, and has done the same for Colin Montgomerie since last year because of problems with hecklers.

 

Well if he didn't want to be heckled, he shouldn't have been born in France!

[Guest treble charged]

When will people learn?

[Guest Powerplay]

Since we're on the france topic, a French golfer is getting heckled at tournaments:

 

Well if he didn't want to be heckled, he shouldn't have been born in France!

And hey, the French have treated us like trash in their country long before this Iraq stituation came up. I suppose we can just ignore that though...

 

Seriously, JotW, he got a few hecklers. I got a few in Pee-Wee Baseball. Idiots happen. This isn't even news-worthy.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

France blew it in WWII when they prepared for a defensive war. It's somewhat understandable because of WWI, but there where some British miltiary leaders who said a more offensive style war would be fought.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

How about helping us get our independence?

To which I thank them.

 

But that was what? Over 225 years ago?

 

What have they done for us LATELY.

 

Oh, try and fuck us over, I remember now.

 

Back to the boycott - I forgot the numbers, but I believe it's something like around 19 billion that they earn from us. We buy a lot more of their shit than they do of ours. Most of those exports are food products. The French economy is sluggish enough that if enough Americans boycott French products, it will hurt them in the long run. How much, I don't know. But some damage will be done.

Actually, it was 2 billion according to the source provided.

 

It would be negligable damage if anything, because they can always find more markets to make up for a piddly 2 billion in income.

 

As far as the veto thing goes, that's what the whole process is for. I agree that they shouldn't be trying to lobby other nations and they should at least be willing to compromise with the US... however, saying they shouldn't veto is kinda lame. They have the right to veto if they don't agree with what is being proposed.

[Guest Vyce]

How about helping us get our independence?

To which I thank them.

 

But that was what? Over 225 years ago?

 

What have they done for us LATELY.

 

Oh, try and fuck us over, I remember now.

 

Back to the boycott - I forgot the numbers, but I believe it's something like around 19 billion that they earn from us. We buy a lot more of their shit than they do of ours. Most of those exports are food products. The French economy is sluggish enough that if enough Americans boycott French products, it will hurt them in the long run. How much, I don't know. But some damage will be done.

Actually, it was 2 billion according to the source provided.

 

It would be negligable damage if anything, because they can always find more markets to make up for a piddly 2 billion in income.

 

As far as the veto thing goes, that's what the whole process is for. I agree that they shouldn't be trying to lobby other nations and they should at least be willing to compromise with the US... however, saying they shouldn't veto is kinda lame. They have the right to veto if they don't agree with what is being proposed.

I've seen other reports listing the figures at much higher than 2 billion.

 

And thing about the French veto is that, the impression they have given (and I believe this is true) is that they're duplicitious. They would veto ANY resolution, no matter what the situation.

 

They've done it before. I can honestly say that if we caved in to the French's suggestions - let the inspectors at Iraq for several more months - and then, after all of that, Sadam STILL did not disarm - I absolutely believe that the French would NOT vote for another resolution even then. They'd veto it.

 

That's a big part of the venom against them. I can understand a country like Turkey being against the war. France has more sinister reasons for opposing it.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

And thing about the French veto is that, the impression they have given (and I believe this is true) is that they're duplicitious. They would veto ANY resolution, no matter what the situation.

 

Correct, that is why people are so pissed at France and not Russia & China, who disagree with taking out Iraq, but are at least more receptive.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

As far as "wanting the inspectors for more time", they DID originally say it'd take around a year. Not saying France is right for vetoing anything and everything, but keep that in mind.

 

Please provide the source on France's exports to the US, though.

[Guest MrRant]

Wouldn't suprise me if it's the French helping Iraq.

 

I don't trust the French.