| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On June 15 2011 15:25 VIB wrote: Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions? It's a little understandable. Most knowledge about Vietnam stems from the Vietnam war, when China really was allied with the Viet Cong. Unless someone is taking a modern world history class, they won't know all the conflicts between them following that war. | ||
|
Dattish
Sweden6297 Posts
| ||
|
Brethern
231 Posts
First off American soldiers and allies did their fair share of massacring Vietnamese civilians during the vietnam war. Go Dai massacre Done by the south korean army. Ha My massacre Done by the south korean marines. My Lai Massacre Done by the US army Phong Nhi and Phong Nhat massacre Done by 2nd Marine Brigade of the South Korean Marines Tay Vinh massacre Done by south korean army Those are what I found on wiki I don't remember any others but some sources state that over 3 million Vietnamese civilians were killed. Since clearly we can trust the american army only my lai was done by them. (sarcasm by the way.) The fact is that they already had guns pointed to their heads and they didn't back down the Chinese will be the same way. | ||
|
fruchtzergeis
64 Posts
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this I'm always astounded how close minded people are to ignore the big communist schisma and that they are in fact not communist countries anymore. I blame McCarthy. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:04 fruchtzergeis wrote: I'm always astounded how close minded people are to ignore the big communist schisma and that they are in fact not communist countries anymore. I blame McCarthy. Uh, why would you blame McCarthy when the Soviet Communist threat was very real and the schism wasn't quite apparent when he was Senator during the 1950's? Talk about being close-minded. | ||
|
Roflhaxx
Korea (South)1244 Posts
On June 15 2011 09:27 Alizee- wrote: Our navy will snap necks if China gets out of line and wants to go full retard. User was warned for this post Most likely not, I see usa actually helping china as a more propable outcome! corrupt government (usa) + huge debt to china = not good combo | ||
|
Reyis
Pitcairn287 Posts
for russias stance in case of a china-vietnam war; they would be the neutral dude once again, nato proposes some deal on the council, boycott it but also dont help china publicly and put political embargos on whoever trying to help vietnam in the asia. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:14 Roflhaxx wrote: Most likely not, I see usa actually helping china as a more propable outcome! corrupt government (usa) + huge debt to china = not good combo That's a pretty odd formula. Anyway, it's been one of the Department of State's focus in this term to build up relations with Southeast Asian countries to counterbalance Chinese power. | ||
|
fruchtzergeis
64 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:07 domovoi wrote: Uh, why would you blame McCarthy when the Soviet Communist threat was very real and the schism wasn't quite apparent when he was Senator during the 1950's? Talk about being close-minded. i blame mccarthy about producing close-minded people due to his politics since 1950. People who just call everything communist instead of differentiating. One can't deny the impact McCarthy had about anticommunist ressentiment. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On June 16 2011 04:45 vohne wrote: It can't win the war if it had a policy of killing civilians. The world would react, unite and attack the US. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians died due to inaccurate bombing, US soldiers shooting randomly or even the project orange chemical sprays. Again if it had a policy of allowing civilians ot be killed, it would have to face most of the civilised World who would never allow this. And don't go into a jingoistic argument about how the US can beat everyone, it can'tm they will get nuked and it will be a Mutually Assured Destruction ending. The US military probably couldn't take on the entire world but if you include all NATO members then it could steamroll over the entire world. People still fail to understand just how massive the US military advantage is. Even today it's budget is almost just as big as the rest of the world combined. On land numbers mean a lot but in the air and sea technological advantage means everything. It doesn't matter if you have a billion ships when you can't find the enemy and the enemy can atack you from twenty times your range. Most likely not, I see usa actually helping china as a more propable outcome! corrupt government (usa) + huge debt to china = not good combo You do realize that when it comes to corruption the USA is more or less a perfect example of how reasonably low you can get corruption in a develloped nation with a lot of money and China is corrupt to the bone right? Also the debt means nothing to the US. If you think the USA honestly gives a fuck about any demands China might make you are deeply mistaken. The debt is a chain that binds both countries together. If America defaults on it's loans (not realistic) then it's China that will suffer the most. America will take a dive and it's outstanding loan will be eradicated as a result of dollar inflation. China will see the vast majority of it's outstanding finances evaporate into thin air and suffer dramastic economic setbacks with their main consumer of goods reducing it's intake. Or did you think Zimbabweans were gonna buy those Ipads? Meanwhile the USA can bounce back pretty easy since it has both a strong production sector and probably the best service sector in the world. America is at the forefront of high know-how jobs. You can't export those to poor countries yet the demand will exist. The debt "problem" is certainly a chain that binds both China and the USA but it's China that weaks up in the middle of the night fearing the day that the loan scheme runs out of control. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On June 16 2011 04:37 vohne wrote: And US has a bigger, stronger and more efficient military that makes up for it. So what? The point is you have a country with a big military vs a smaller military country, and big does not always trump small. That was the point. The minute you start drilling down to specifics, whether or not they share a border, whether one has aircraft carriers or not, whether one has a billion population or not, then you lose the simplistic point that the metaphor was trying to establish. Give me any metaphor and I will break it down by being nitpicky, but the point of a metaphor is not to offer a complete and perfect substitute, but, in this case, it was to prove a single solitary point. BIG does not always beat SMALL. If you still insist on this point, then lets take away the metaphor and tell me exactly who would stand a better chance at beating Vietnam at a military conflict and why. Is it the more sophisticated, better trained and better equipped US army. Or the larger and nearer Chinese army. If you say US, then you prove my point, because US lost it back then. If you say Chinese, and stick to your logistical argument, then you still do not disprove my point because I said sometimes big militaries don't beat small militaries, not always. Finally if you don't know, then what are you even talking about. On the issue of proximity and UNCLOS, I would like to say this. UNCLOS applies only if there was not historical claim to the islands. Specifically the parcel islands, if Vietnam claims that it had Vietnamese inhabitants there way before and has ancestral rights to it, then it does not matter if the land was 10miles away or 1000 miles away, it has claims on it cause it had or has people living there. If the disputed territory has no historical claims, then the UNCLOS is the reference. Read up, what I say is true. So you're trying to boil down military conflicts into binaries. That's a pretty intelligent thing to do. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On June 16 2011 04:48 domovoi wrote: It's a little understandable. Most knowledge about Vietnam stems from the Vietnam war, when China really was allied with the Viet Cong. Unless someone is taking a modern world history class, they won't know all the conflicts between them following that war. Or a history class about all the conflicts between them before that war. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
Greatness
United States450 Posts
| ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On June 16 2011 05:24 fruchtzergeis wrote: i blame mccarthy about producing close-minded people due to his politics since 1950. People who just call everything communist instead of differentiating. One can't deny the impact McCarthy had about anticommunist ressentiment. You have the causation arrow backwards. The USSR did plenty on its own to breed anti-communist resentment (e.g. Cuban Missle Crisis). McCarthy's "witchhunt"* wouldn't have gotten anywhere if people weren't already predisposed to the idea. * McCarthy shamefully was way too zealous in trying to root out the very real threat. However, many of the people he was accusing did turn out to be Soviet spies. | ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote: What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). People thought the same about the United States in Vietnam back in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Again, that's because of the nature of the wars that were fought. Huge amount of hit and run/guerilla style tactics. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
![[image loading]](http://m2.biz.itc.cn/pic/new/n/01/10/Img2641001_n.jpg) Not Vietnam, but I thought it was cute. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On June 16 2011 06:06 Clbull wrote: People thought the same about the United States in Vietnam back in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Again, that's because of the nature of the wars that were fought. Huge amount of hit and run/guerilla style tactics. You do realize that both of those conflicts were proxy wars right? | ||
| ||
|
|
LiuLi Cup
Serral vs MaNa
Spirit vs herO
Master's Coliseum
herO vs Astrea
Reynor vs Spirit
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Zoun vs MaxPax
Serral vs GuMiho
Red Clan Cup
Master's Coliseum
OSC
OlimoLeague
LiuLi Cup
SKillous vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
