IS AMERICA A BULLY?

@Frank Apisa,

I wish you could be as calm as I am, Frank, but apparently I am getting under your skin quite a lot... Like, to the extent you can't actually address the issues raised by other posters... Should I declare "mission accomplished" yet? Smile

1 Reply

@panzade,

Quote:

Now cut the crap and stop deluding yourself by trying to differentiate between France in Viet Nam and the US in Viet Nam.

Where did I make that distinction? I said the alleged motives were different, but that just say the propaganda was different. It says nothing about what behavior both armies adopted while in the battlefield or with civilians.

On the latter issue, however, Setanta rightly pointed out that the French did not carpet bomb Vietnam. You guys did that, with your amazing oh-so-American restraint.

2 Replies

Don't forget napalm and agent Orange . . . both vital parts of the American policy of restraint.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

France fought to maintain its dominion, but the US went to war officially to free the poor Viets from bad bad communism.
So they were the hypocrite ones.

U think that America did not ENJOY killing commies ?????????
There was nothing hypocritical about it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Don't forget napalm and agent Orange . . . both vital parts of the American policy of restraint.

Yes...a shameful chapter.

2 Replies

@panzade,

What is most pathetic about this disgusting display of chauvinism, this entire thread, is the attempt to whitewash or ignore the shameful chapters.

1 Reply

Setanta wrote:

this disgusting display of chavinism,

You mean they are behaving like chavs?

0 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

Yes...a shameful chapter.

So you finally decided to cut the crap on Vietnam? Good!

1 Reply

America was not going to just
sit idly by and watch Indo China be enslaved by the commies.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What is most pathetic about this disgusting display of chauvinism, this entire thread, is the attempt to whitewash or ignore the shameful chapters.

C’mon, Jabba…you are letting your anger get in the way of reason again.

First of all…using any kind of weapons sucks. Agent Orange, Napalm, drones…all suck. War itself, as Sherman mentioned, is hell.

But using weapons that are not the biggest and baddest in your arsenal…IS SHOWING RESTRAINT.

I can’t imagine some of the earlier world powers saying…”well, we’ve got such and such a weapon…and we can annihilate them with that…but we will use some restraint and only use the weapons which will hurt them but not annihilate them.”

The US has much greater power to kill and maim and dominate than Agent Orange, Napalm, or drones…but instead is showing restraint.

So you are correct, Jabba, that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.

BUT not using the most destructive available does show restraint…which is what I have been saying right along. We do appear to be showing more restraint with what we have at our disposal than previous world powers have shown with what they had available.

In a way, Jabba, I ought to be thanking you for helping make that point.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So you finally decided to cut the crap on Vietnam? Good!

Bravo! Well done! Excellent usage!
You'll never convince me that France's pillage of the Far-East was any more enlightened.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I wish you could be as calm as I am, Frank, but apparently I am getting under your skin quite a lot... Like, to the extent you can't actually address the issues raised by other posters... Should I declare "mission accomplished" yet?

I wouldn't if I were you.

I thank you for the compliment of imitation. I'll even acknowledge that has made my day. But you've still got lots of road too travel...and I will be here to help you make the trek.

Not sure why you think I am giving other posters short shrift, Olivier...but I don't think I am at all.

Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If you'd address the issues rather than focus on my and other posters' psychology, people might care for what you say...

1 Reply

@panzade,

That's another cheap strawman... I never said colonialism was "enlightened", just that, in this particular case, France showed greater restraint in warfare than the US. Try to keep up, will you?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

If you'd address the issues rather than focus on my and other posters' psychology, people might care for what you say...

I focused almost exclusively on the issues earlier in this thread, Olivier.

Now we are just having a bit of fun...as happens in almost all threads here in A2K. You are having fun, aren't you? Wink

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

That's another cheap strawman... I never said colonialism was "enlightened", just that, in this particular case, France showed greater restraint in warfare than the US. Try to keep up, will you?

I think it is reasonable for second world nations like France to show as much restraint as possible! Keeps them from getting squashed.

Of course, the fact that second world nations show great restraint has nothing to do with the fact that world powers often do not...nor with my opinion that the US has shown more restraint than previous great world powers.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

France showed greater restraint in warfare than the US.

Only because the colonial empire was bankrupt. Otherwise the restraint would have been the same
FRANK

Quote:

Now we are just having a bit of fun...as happens in almost all threads here in A2K. You are having fun, aren't you? Wink

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/148763_520944107924145_1214647911_n.jpg

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Setanta wrote:

What is most pathetic about this disgusting display of chauvinism, this entire thread, is the attempt to whitewash or ignore the shameful chapters.

Frank Apisa wrote:

C’mon, Jabba…you are letting your anger get in the way of reason again.

First of all…using any kind of weapons sucks. Agent Orange, Napalm, drones…all suck. War itself, as Sherman mentioned, is hell.

But using weapons that are not the biggest and baddest in your arsenal…IS SHOWING RESTRAINT.

I can’t imagine some of the earlier world powers saying…”well, we’ve got such and such a weapon…and we can annihilate them with that…but we will use some restraint and only use the weapons which will hurt them but not annihilate them.”

The US has much greater power to kill and maim and dominate than Agent Orange, Napalm, or drones…but instead is showing restraint.

So you are correct, Jabba, that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.

OK, lemme get this straight, Frank:
in order to avoid being DISGUSTING,
we shud have resisted the Japs, the nazis, and the commies with NO weapons????

Shud we have hit them with pillows ["not too hard, ez, there!"]

In your vu, we shud have answered their aggression
by DOING NOTHING, Mahatma Apisa?????

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't think so. But you are entitled to your opinion... Smile

1 Reply

@panzade,

So the reason the US showed no restraint in its massive use of napalm over Vietnam and Cambodia is that their colonial empire was not yet bankrupt?

Laughable indeed.

0 Replies

IS AMERICA A BULLY?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know