we did pretty much all of the bombing in south vietnam. we also had detention camps there (for their own good of course). the nlf was the only group that had broad popular support in south vietnam, which is why we had to show the population that they weren't ready for the kind of democracy we had in mind.
The Viet Cong were the rebels in the South. They often worked in concert with -- or at least with the support of -- the North Vietnamese Army, but they were from the South.
Okay then my point is still valid because if Viet Cong were rebels then that only means the government, which was in control of the South, was on American's side - the South Vietnamese government was representing half of the country fighting the North. So what's the argument here?
Near the end it was right. The Americans and South Vietnamese pretty much wiped out the Viet Cong. In the last few years of the war the "Viet Cong" were just North Vientamese regulars who kept the "revolution" going in name only for propaganda purposes. The few real Viet Cong units left were totally absorbed into the North Vietnamese structure. The point is that during the war North Vietnam was a total and complete nation unto itself, just as South Vientam was. The US and South Vietnam fought against the resources of that nation (large population, indigenous industry, large port with the might of the Soviet Union poured into it...). There isn't anything like it in Iraq.
http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos073103.asp This is an older article from the end of July 2003. I heard this again today on MSNBC tv. ...and an article from them... http://www.msnbc.com/news/974395.asp?cp1=1 It the Iraqi/terrorists/outsiders/military guys decide to make such a move, the current US troops could lose big time, in numbers and moral. This will make these helo disasters small by comparison. Here is what FoxNews says about this article... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96675,00.html Replacement troops from the reserves are not there yet and will be there for a year. They will be targets, especially the new guys, who might not know exactly what to expect. Here is another article... http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=4889 If interested, do your own googles.
Our forces also dropped some big bombs on empty fields near the crash site. Man, this is all so unspeakably sad. I've seen this movie before, and it had a bad ending last time. Seriously, think about what's going on here. Our soldiers lost discipline and committed pointless acts. I guess that fits with this stupid, pointless war.
I like how Vietnam is somehow anlagous to the situation now, but before the war there were NO signs of similarity between Iraq and WWII. Anyone who so much as hinted at a historical connection was lambasted by throaty liberals. So I'm going to call you on it. There is no similarity between Iraq and WWII or Iraq and Vietnam because quite frankly, Iraq is Iraq. We have a lot on the line and we have got to be prepared to finish this up in the coming months. Being concerned about the current situation is understandable. Hell, I'm concerned about the security situation. However, no good will come out of being all gloom and doom.
I dunno ... is 'Fixed your post' just too passe for words these days? I think that is one of those questions that has answers like "Well why did God make them out of delicious meat then?"
NO, no I know afghan girls can be cute. I think any state has cute girls even UK. I'm a revolutionary. I referred to that "cover up their entire bodies". Saddam was saddam but Iraq was a laical state. Of course it was hard to find short skirts around.