World War Three!?

@Pervavita:

i ment it as in there was no major pushes with victory of capture a city and you win type war. no side could afford to fight like that as the fear of nukes was there that could win the war for ether side in one simple move. it was war, it was on large war, it had many diffrent theaters that crossed over 4 of the 6 populated continouts, and the last two being N Amarica and Ociana. US was invalved so we now had 5 out of 6 invalved. thats more or the same as WWI.

Let me get this straight.
You think that because the US sent the military all over the globe during a 50 year period, that constitutes a World War.
That’s absurd, but then again…that’s exactly what some foreigners thing of us: aggressors that stick our nose in everybody’s business.  The US was trying to combat the “Red Menace,” but the truth is, we couldn’t stop that, and it had little to do with USSR anyway.  We were convinced otherwise, though.

@dezrtfish:

@Jermofoot:

I hope I didn’t misunderstand you…but I think you’d be doing your kids the right thing.  Father first, fighter second.

It’s a tough position to be in, I hope my children can serve the country in a less sacrificial way than I have and will, but whatever their choice I will be proud…

Just tell them to go to school, get a job, work like their life depends on it, take care of their parents, and don’t act like a dumbass.  That should be good.

@balungaloaf:

well, i mean n.korea used soviet tanks and arms.  and it is a fact that kim il sung or whoever asked stalin if it was ok to invade.  stalin would not let him. stalin was in charge here.  after a while stalin blessed the invasion.  it was the USSR giving the orders.  America knew this and tried to stop it to show that the US would counter any russian agression.  and the soviets began this agression by occupying the eastern european countries.

Yes, the N. Koreans had Soviet-made, hand-me-down weaponry & equipment, but so did the S. Koreans (from the US).  That’s how the area was administrated post-WW2.  Same for Europe.
And Stalin was not calling the shots.  Kim wanted to unite the peninsula, Stalin agreed, but didn’t want to risk getting into another war, possibly with the US.  America didn’t know shit about this - it came as a surprise to the US, the UN, and only S. Korean troops were in S. Korea at the time.

the Russians concede that it was them all along flying the migs.  thats war also.  and we knew it was them all along.

Of course it was them, they warned us about crossing the DMZ (and China as well)!  He can you be so obtuse?  Had we stopped at the agreed border, it wouldn’t have been as large of a conflict.

and vietnam got all of its armaments of every sort from the USSR for the war.  all those great SAM missiles that shot down our B-52’s were made specifically by the USSR for use by the NVA.  the russians knew what they were doing.  and so did we.

First of all, we were involved in Vietnam before the Soviets, so that’s bull-honkey.  That’s one thing you could actually be mad at France for.  But the N. Vietnamese had the same ambitions as the N. Koreans, and neither China nor the USSR were considered for the future.  That’s where we were wrong.  We say all Communist nations as one giant entity when it wasn’t.

oh and the comintern.  lenin devised the comintern, and one thing for sure is, is that the USSR ran the comintern as the boss, not as an equal.  and every communist nation joined the comintern, and therefor was wielded by the USSR.  china didnt like it very well and was the only nation strong enough to rebuff the soviets for bossing them around all the time.  b/c china would be able to make russia pay for invading it.  not so with the other nations.

WTF?  The Comintern was gone before the end of WW2, before China was even Communist.

#1, numero uno, the big fact of the war……,

the united states went to vietnam to keep if from being taken over by the communist north.

Wrong.  The US went in trying to prevent the spread of communist influences, or in this case, USSR influences.  Either way, we were already there.

2.  the us fought and fought and kept the NVA or vietcong from taking over.  it took many years but thats because the north lives right there, they can wait to outlast us.  but we knew this and trained the s. vietnamese soldiers to defend their own country.

I can agree with this.

3.  we began to withdraw and let the newly trained s.vietnamese army take care of its own country.  THE COUNTRY WAS STILL FREE, our GOAL ALL ALONG.  we were able to repulse the initial invasions back and keep an insurgency from taking over when it was in full steam.

Except it was shown that the S. Vietnamese were pretty much incapable of protecting themselves without us.

4.  our troops are out, our goal is complete.  a victory for what we wanted to accomplish.  the north sensed a southern abandonment by the US and unleashed a 2 million man invasion, backed by armored divisions.  thats huge, thats way bigger than hitlers invasion of the USSR.  but with american naval guns and air support, the s.vietnamese repulsed this invasion.  a HUGE victory.

Ok, I don’t know what you are talking about here.  Please clarify.  I think you have the timetable messed up.

5.  ted kennedy that lowlife senator begins his grand campaign to ensure defeat.  well, we shouldnt help them at all he says.  idiots believe his orchestrated defeat clause, man did he ever want us to lose, like democrats today.  he got his democrat majority to cut off funding for the s.vietnamese…. :cry:  truly a dark day.

More BS.  You don’t even mention how critical the citizens were of the war, or the Paris Peace Accords.  The entire country was tired of it.  It was a lost cause.  Get over it.

6.  well now the s.vietnamese felt entirely ABANDONED.  morale sinks.  little hope to always be able to again and again repulse a SOVIET funded and armed n.vietnamese army.  without weapons and parts from the US, the s.vietnamese had no chance.  and they knew it……and so did God-damned ted kennedy.

Well, a truce had been negotiated, and damned if anybody wanted us to go back in.  It would have killed politically anyone who decided that, and anyone with a brain new there was no point to it.  Your forget that CHINA also supplied the N. Vietnamese, but the key here is that Vietnam wanted to united - China nor the USSR had any interest or advantage in annexing the area.

7.  then after a second huge invasion, the north got what ted kennedy wanted.  their victory.  then the liberal unchallenged media twisted the whole thing into a failure.  it took em 10 years of distortions, but unchallenged, they made their mark.

Oh geez.  Ted Kennedy wants you to grow a brain so you can provide a real argument.  There must be a hell of a lot of Vietnamese/Commie lovers in the states to reelect a guy continuously that wanted us to lose and the N. Vietnamese to win.  People just wanted out of Vietnam, PERIOD.

so after all, the vietnam war was a winable war.  hell we did win.  we held off the communists until the south could defend itself.  thats what we were there to do.  we werent there to stay in s.vietnam forever.  so we left with our goal completed.  success.  a win.  but the only reason we lost was due to democrats abandoning our victory following the liberal high priest kennedy.  thats right, no way a democrat could ever be in favor of a plan that see’s america lose……no way right?  hmmm, sounds familiar, like now perhaps.  where a democrat is quoted as “success in iraq is bad for our party”.  reid saying we already lost in jan 2007, on and on and on.

Vietnam was no more winnable than the Korean War.  Just like Iraq today won’t rid the world of terrorism.  Pointless ventures that accomplished nothing. 
After it was over, all that happened was Vietnam reunited.  Not the end of the world, communism didn’t win.  We completely misjudged the situation and got burned for it, and you can’t even see it.  What a “success” to hold off the N. Vietnamese for years, then S. Vietnam collapses as soon as we leave.  Yup, that was really worth our trouble. 
Please, drop the Dem kick, it makes you look like the Loose Change guy, just a different angle.

so brush up on your vietnam war history bub, b/c the way you spin it sounds like it came right from old teddy himself.

That’s hilarious.  I’m not the one accusing Democrats of wanting to lose.  Get a different schtick, this one’s tiring.  I also don’t have to qualify my statements with…“we won, until we left.”  Yeah, whatever dude.  I see the history written, and very little matches up with what you say.

ok, trust me, stalin didnt let sung invade, until later, when stalin let sung invade.  sung always wanted to invade, but stalin wouldnt let him.  stalin called the shots.  if you still dont believe me, then i have to go and find sources to show you, which is a pain.

#2. the UN couldnt just let the n.koreans have a whole country to regroup in and stage invasion after invasion.  they had to go north.  kinda a no-shit-sherlock thing to do.

and the s.vietnamese could to protect themselves without us. they did against a 2 million man invasion force.  and we did win in vietnam.  the only way we lost was by abondoning the south.  kind of like if we were to succeed in iraq. leave, and then cut off all funding so the government collapses.  which democrats would love to do.

does this not make sense, we won, came home, and somehow got called for losing when the congress cut off funds to s.vietnam.  our congress was the only reason we lost.  screw the hippie protesters, let them think they actually mattered.

and so it wasnt a lost cause either.  we succeeded on the battlefield.  we accomplished our mission and came home.  democrats lost the war back at home well after our mission.  get over it.

and korea, vietnam, and iraq all accomplished alot.  open a God-damn book.

No one told Stalin what to do.  Even Lenin answered to Stalin.

World war III if i can say something

wont happen. at least not in the form as the World war is clasified

in this century, IMPO  we will have dozens of wars, in which indirectly will be involved major world powers( China, Russian Federation, USA, India…) but they will not fought directly

even if they provide military assistance to one side and clash with other sides soldiers of one superpower it will be a war there, if one side loosses it wont trigger Nuclear war , the other side will silently (or not) have to take the defeat

we had something similar in Vietnam, Etiopian conflicts issues of last century…

and i agree with Jermofoot at least partialy,

Religion is very important, especially when looking at ˝Muslim countries˝ in those countries, ˝Islam, not nationalis˝ becomes key ideology, a way of living and thinking
Islam as a religious movement, and political parties which lean on Islam, will become more and more basics of political and cultural stucture in those countries

and for resources, well the battles are being fought already, so lets say we`re in silent( if it can be said so) time of struggling for world supremacy( domination ) and the creation of a new world moral( religous ), political, social and cultural order( status )

i think its inevitable that there will be a lot domestic turmoil in many countries( not just in poor ones like Kenya, but countries like France too-we had that famous case of ˝Burning cars˝ a few years ago.  A lot of domestic turmoils-low salaries, fast global changes, both cultural, economical, climate …

then repression of govenments, bloodspilt…

wars, border disputes, conventional wars, Civilan crisis, unsolved ANTARKTIKA AND ARKTIK issues…

and then finally the clash of civilizations which is from this point inevitable, as i said earlier, it wont be nuclear war, or somethin like that, but series of political, geostrategic, economical ˝games˝ + some conventional wars, and enormous media propaganda on many sides

i personally think that question and issues like Religion, Nationalism, Social Justice, Cultural and Historical identity, Language will be much more important considering ˝the East countries˝ then it will be issues of resources, altough issue of resources will be very important, since without them any country can hardly ˝raise itself˝ to greater level

as from that key ˝world spots˝ will be

Asia Minor-Kurdistani issue

Western Asia-Armenia-Azerbeaijan issue, Armenian genocide, Armenian-Turkish relations, Azerbaijani issue( vast number of Azeri live in Iran )

Middle East-Iran, Izrael, Libanon, Suez Canal-Egypt, Hormuz Strait-between Iran and Saudi Arabian Peninsula( dozens % of world oil exports pass thorugh this strait)

South Asia-India-muslim relations, Pakistan, Balochistan issue-(stretches into 3 countries; Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan)

Central Asia-Afghanistan, Rus.Fed, China, India, USA military bases

Eastern Europe-pro European, pro Russian clash

Southeastern Europe-similar as Eastern European but Kosovo complicates the problem,
along with muslim issue

Southeastern Asia-muslim issue, South Tailand, South Fillippini, Malacca strait issue

Eastern Afica-Etiopian issue-doesnt have free access to sea, Somalia-muslim issue, Bab al Mandeb strait( between Djibouti-Jemen)

please note that the straits are of key geostrategical importance, since them if are controlled, or denied of control can lead foreign relations to Ardent

so, more or less cultural and civilization clash since one ˝Culture˝-and i dont mean purely on USA here-so you dont get me wrong or think i want to ˝sotonize˝ any country… not country, but one culture is implemented as ˝the right one˝ and since other cultures simply cant accept this ˝silent cultural genocide˝ it will lead to inevitable clashes

the major world players
-USA
-Russian Federation and ˝pro Russian countries˝
-China
-India
-Lationoamerican countries( if they act together)
-Germany( EU)
-Muslim countries( Arab league )
-Iran
-Japan

and about Korean issue

the Koreas will unite, in 5 years, 10 ,15-20. They will unite, thats what i think and believe will be so…

i wrote much, maybe too much of my thoughts, but ok, its an interesting topic for me,

in the end

i ll pray for not having any WWIII of any kind if its possible :-)

@balungaloaf:

ok, trust me, stalin didnt let sung invade, until later, when stalin let sung invade.  sung always wanted to invade, but stalin wouldnt let him.  stalin called the shots.  if you still dont believe me, then i have to go and find sources to show you, which is a pain.

I know that Sung went to Stalin.  I’ve read this…but I think you are mistaken as far as who was doing what.  It would have done no good for the USSR to have N. Korea overtake S. Korea.  Stalin didn’t want another major conflict…that is the important point to remember.  The Allies didn’t expect N. Korea to attack, and the USSR didn’t expect the US to counter.

#2. the UN couldnt just let the n.koreans have a whole country to regroup in and stage invasion after invasion.  they had to go north.  kinda a no-sh*t-sherlock thing to do.

The sensible thing to do was not broaden the conflict.  I agree that the UN shouldn’t have stood by idly, but crossing the DMZ was the wrong move, especially when they were warned not to.

and the s.vietnamese could to protect themselves without us. they did against a 2 million man invasion force.  and we did win in vietnam.  the only way we lost was by abondoning the south.  kind of like if we were to succeed in iraq. leave, and then cut off all funding so the government collapses.  which democrats would love to do.

I still don’t see where N.Vietnam had a force of 2 million, or where S. Vietnam repulsed anything without the US. 
And I’m not saying we lost, just that we were fighting a losing battle.  We went into something that could not be won, and had been going for years.
Let me ask you this…did UK “win” against Germany when defending France and the low countries?

does this not make sense, we won, came home, and somehow got called for losing when the congress cut off funds to s.vietnam.  our congress was the only reason we lost.  screw the hippie protesters, let them think they actually mattered.

Again, the Paris Peace Accords were supposed to be the end.  We were done.  Then N. Vietnam invaded again and it was over.  We were there for all those years and it mattered none.
And not all protesters/anti-war peeps were hippies unless a majority of the country was at the time.  People were done with it.

and so it wasnt a lost cause either.  we succeeded on the battlefield.  we accomplished our mission and came home.  democrats lost the war back at home well after our mission.  get over it.

We no doubt overcame opposition militarily.  But there is no S. Vietnam.  How was that not a lost cause?  We spent so many years, lives, and money, only to have a unified Vietnam today.  We gained nothing for it = lost cause.  Even saying “we won until we left” is not worth what we gave.

and korea, vietnam, and iraq all accomplished alot.  open a God-damn book.

Ok, tell me what they accomplished. 
Vietnam = unified
Korea = still at a standstill half a century later
Iraq = ?

it wouldnt of been a lost cost without liberals.  no liberals = success.  everytime.
we wouldnt of lost at all if they didnt exist.  its like they wanted the mass murder from the communists against the people of the south.  and remember what we did for w.germany, japan, and s.korea.  they are very prosperous now with free societies.  we do good for people.

and the UK got its military butt handed to them on the battlefield.  the germans mopped them up all the way to dunkirk.

@balungaloaf:

it wouldnt of been a lost cost without liberals.  no liberals = success.  everytime.
we wouldnt of lost at all if they didnt exist.  its like they wanted the mass murder from the communists against the people of the south.  and remember what we did for w.germany, japan, and s.korea.  they are very prosperous now with free societies.  we do good for people.

Liberals have nothing to do with it.  You can’t tell me that a majority of the nation were liberals in the 70s.
There was nothing to gain, balung.  NOTHING.  It was inevitable.  At most, we would have two Vietnams in the same position as the Koreas, and what good does that do the US or the Vietnamese?  But along with that would have been more deaths, more costs, and more instability.
Sure, we do good.  But war is in no way good.  We prolonged a conflict that caused quite a few more deaths and injuries.  We napalmed the shit out of Vietnam and the surrounding countries.  We dropped Agent Orange all over the place and the effects are still being felt today.  Sounds like a lot of good we did.

and the UK got its military butt handed to them on the battlefield.  the germans mopped them up all the way to dunkirk.

That wasn’t the point.  Did they say they accomplished their mission until they evacuated at Dunkirk?  No, they don’t.  Because Hitler took France, Belgium, and the Netherlands anyway.

You can’t say S. korea is a did not benift from the korean war. look at south korea and its economy and its people then look at Kim JOng’s countrymen and thier economy. Then tell me the korean war was a total faliure. also s. Vietnam would be just likeas prosporous. And the whole nations of Vietnam or Korea would be so much happier if it was led by the south’s government. Yet no one is concern that the vietnamese and the north koreans are still oppressed by the iron fist of communism.

@cyan:

You can’t say S. korea is a did not benift from the korean war. look at south korea and its economy and its people then look at Kim JOng’s countrymen and thier economy. Then tell me the korean war was a total faliure. also s. Vietnam would be just likeas prosporous. And the whole nations of Vietnam or Korea would be so much happier if it was led by the south’s government. Yet no one is concern that the vietnamese and the north koreans are still oppressed by the iron fist of communism.

Sure enough.  But was it worth the conflict?  Maybe.  Vietnam was a longer standing crisis, though.

You have to remember that we are looking back, however.  At the time, many thought they were doing the right/smartest thing.  It’s only the benefit of hindsight can we say what is what.

hindsight is 20 20.

Speaking of Korea though, it is true that South Korea is an immensely prosperous nation, while North Korea languishes in poverty. South Korea became “Americanized” and now places that where once rice patties and dusty mountain roads are prosperous metropolises. ( I know this because my sister is serving in Korea with the Army engineers) Without our intervention, South Korea would have been conquered, and would be no better off than North Korea is under the heel of communism. The Korean conflict was one of our more noble military ventures.

But we took a number of casualties in Korea, was it worth that sacrifice of American lives? As a Marine I believe we are all expendable to accomplish our mission, but the call is yours. How many of us will you sacrifice to accomplish the objective? You should be willing to sacrifice all of us. That kind of resolve no longer exists in America.

@M36:

Speaking of Korea though, it is true that South Korea is an immensely prosperous nation, while North Korea languishes in poverty. South Korea became “Americanized” and now places that where once rice patties and dusty mountain roads are prosperous metropolises. ( I know this because my sister is serving in Korea with the Army engineers) Without our intervention, South Korea would have been conquered, and would be no better off than North Korea is under the heel of communism. The Korean conflict was one of our more noble military ventures.

Sure, military means money.  S. Vietnam had a huge jump in economy when we were there that mostly collapsed after we left.  It would happen no matter where we go.

However, the state of Korea today has less to do with them being dirty communists, and more with the disintegration of the USSR and a horrible famine during the 90’s.  They simply could not support themselves because their primary trading partner disappeared and was unable to supply what they needed, only to be subjected to a series of disastrous floods and drought.  Of course, it’s not helped by their military-oriented economic policy, but we do similar and still sustain ourselves (but we’ve got the goods).

But we took a number of casualties in Korea, was it worth that sacrifice of American lives? As a Marine I believe we are all expendable to accomplish our mission, but the call is yours. How many of us will you sacrifice to accomplish the objective? You should be willing to sacrifice all of us. That kind of resolve no longer exists in America.

Tough to say.  As an elite group of fighters, I wouldn’t send Marines in frivolously.  When it comes to Korea, we are exactly where we were after WW2 (except no skirmishes and such).  So did it do any good?  I guess so, primarily economically.  Are your lives worth promoting the economy of another country?  Are anyone’s?  Especially when that country actually competes with our own?

But here’s the thing: we installed an unpopular dictator in S. Korea that resigned.  A military coup followed that was just was tyrannical and ruthless.  It really goes unnoticed because the economy surged and we “saved” them from communism.  But I don’t think we accomplished all that much.

I’m not sure when or where you guys should be deployed.  Hopefully never, but that’s a pipe dream.