China lost Taiwan??..China did not lost taiwan..it was the nationalist who retreated to Taiwan when they lost to the communist..n communist China did not want to follow in..so since when China lost Taiwan?..i dun consider it a bully..cos china never pull any punches yet...so pls dun make accusation abt china being a bullyOriginally posted by Patriotic Tim:THe U.S made a mistake spending so much in development of Stealth Aerial Technology..... What a waste. If its Russia who found a counter to F117, its ok, but its CHINA!!!!!! CHINA sucks!!!! I just don't understand man.... WHY do they have to take back what they had lost last time??? TIBET, TAIWAN..... see how they treat the DALAI LAMA and Tibetians, 1940s, they force the Nationalist out and now, they claim that Taiwan is part of them!!! SHIT!!!! See how arrogant they are, so they think they are powerful, conducting exercises at that don't know what island. Actually, Taiwan is fighting a losing battle on the ground and sea, and maybe even the air as the air is going to be used to support ground and sea... i see this ssiiue as big bullies " DA CHI SIAO" in chinese. Anybody and enlighten me on this issue??
Indeed !!!! Americans don't play big brother role for free. Some sort of returns are alway expected may it be political support or trade concession of some kind.Originally posted by Ducati996:i am not anti-US, but a lot of times their actions irk me. true, they help others a lot, but often it is heavily tinged with politics. i guess its normal, but what gets to me is their overly self-righteous attitude. they appoint themselves as policemen of the world. often, they think their way, and only, their way, is the proper way and works out for everybody and does not give due consideration for the feelings of the natives. they often poke their noses in when its not wanted. when we caned michael fay, they accused us of going against human rights. when anwar was jailed, they poked their noses in and claimed injustice. when vietnam was split in civil war by communism, they joined the fray 'to protect the vietnamese against communism'. in one word: busybodies.
and they hail their president as 'as the most powerful man in the world' and often label him as 'leader of the free world'. well then why doesn't the rest of the free world get to vote for him then?
i know lots of times they do good, even when tinged with politics. i just feel there should be limit to how deep they poke their noses into other people's business.
i agreeOriginally posted by seow_leow:Forget it. How often can u find objective view in forum?
i agree with u in most part Viper..but not this..the problem is.. U.S did not win the war in vietnam..so its involvement is somehow Extra(obsolete)..so it did not stop communism in SEA..i believe communism just die away in those SEA country it trying to infiltrateOriginally posted by Viper52:Ducati1996: I do agree that the US is a busybody at times, but I think your analysis of US involvement in Vietnam was flawed. I think had the US not got involved, the fall of Vietnam, and all of SE Asia to communism would be very real. It is now agreed for a fact that the National Liberation Front(more pupularly known as the Viet Cong) of Vietnam was just short of initiating Phase 3 of a "peoples revolution"(ie. the start of subversion in urban centres after completing Phase 2 - comunization in the rural areas) by the time the US sent troops to South Vietnam in 1965. It would then be a matter of time before Cambodia and Laos fell, and thereafter Thailand Malaysia and Singapore, which already had active communist movements. Of course, Indonesia under Sukarno was already overtly communist. The Domino Theory may be easy to be scoffed by the Left in the West, but in 1965 in SE Asia, it was very real. US involvement might not have stopped the communists in IndoChina, but it was vital to stopping communism in SE Asia because
Nathan, yes the US did not win the war in Vietnam, and failed to prevent the march of communism in IndoChina. But my point is that US involvement in Vietnam slowed that march by 10 years(1975 instead of 1965 if it had not got involved) and, besides that, woke the Free World(including SE Asia itself) to the fact that the threat of communism to SE Asia was very real and galvanised the nations to form a united front against communism in SE Asia within and without their borders.Originally posted by NathanG5:i agree with u in most part Viper..but not this..the problem is.. U.S did not win the war in vietnam..so its involvement is somehow Extra(obsolete)..so it did not stop communism in SEA..i believe communism just die away in those SEA country it trying to infiltrate
i am not well-versed in history, so your post is actually something new for me to learn. even so, this is one of those things which i do agree US had good intentions. however, again, i feel this is too heavily tinged with politics. unfortunately, my knowledge in this matter is limited to reading autobiographies of US vietnam war veterans. i have a good-sized collection of such books, and i have discovered a common sentiment among them: they lost because their military strategy was determined by politicians back home who did not appreciate the situation at hand, and who had little or no knowledge of military strategy. of course, there were other factors, i just find that this is a common sentiment among the vets.Originally posted by Viper52:Ducati1996: I do agree that the US is a busybody at times, but I think your analysis of US involvement in Vietnam was flawed.
Ducati, the problem with US strategy in Vietnam was two-fold: Firstly, as you have mentioned, they politcized the war and let the politicians, instead of the military, do the fighting. That, along with the nasty American trait of doing everything with overwhelming force(ie using a sledgehammer when a pair of tweezers was needed), effectively meant that the war for hearts and minds would never be won.Originally posted by Ducati996:i am not well-versed in history, so your post is actually something new for me to learn. even so, this is one of those things which i do agree US had good intentions. however, again, i feel this is too heavily tinged with politics. unfortunately, my knowledge in this matter is limited to reading autobiographies of US vietnam war veterans. i have a good-sized collection of such books, and i have discovered a common sentiment among them: they lost because their military strategy was determined by politicians back home who did not appreciate the situation at hand, and who had little or no knowledge of military strategy. of course, there were other factors, i just find that this is a common sentiment among the vets.
no it didn't. the story was only about the author's experience as a lieutenant during the battle itself.Originally posted by Viper52:Its interesting you brought out the 1968 Battle of Hue. Did the book mention anything about what happened after the Communists initially overran Hue?