Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (157381)	1/3/2003 5:13:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 1582659

Why does this make it better? You didn't dispute the facts on my link but rather my argument......why should I feel good about that? I didn't say you should feel good. I was just responding to your implied claim of my arrogance. Which BTW even if true would amount to an example of the ad-hominem logical fallacy rather then a refutation of my point. To repeat the point we did not quickly or consistently apply overwhelming force in Vietnam. I think if we get involved in a real war (as opposed to a small peace keeping operation) we should do what it takes to win. If we are not willing to do what it takes to win that we should stay out. I am not sure you read my post very carefully......my attack wasn't vague or unfocused. Your point to Ray was not vague or unfocused. Your response to my point was or at least was focused on me rather then what I said. So I present that link as proof that D. Ray's claim is not necessarily correct. Of course, what D. Ray has conveniently forgotten is that it was concluded at the end of the Vietnam War the reason we lost was because we were unfamiliar with jungle terrain and the kind of fighting that it requires. The terrain was certainly an issue but the main thing is our enemy was more commited to win then we where. Despite are relative unfamiliarity with the jungle we outfought the Vietnamese communists again and again. They never won anything that could be called a major battle against us and it was rare for them to win a minor battle or anything more then a quick skirmish or ambush. Tet is often looked on as a defeat for the US and it was in terms of its political impact at home but militarily the communists where shattered by Tet and our response. But we never followed up military wins by pressing harder to take advantage of the situation. Then you step in with your unsupported claim that in the Vietnam War [and apparently no other war].....guys were sent to the front on tours and therefore the total manpower shown on the link is incorrect and does not reflect the true totals of that war. I didn't say the total manpower number was incorrect. I said or at least implied it was misleading. The number is correct but just looking at the total number that ever went to Vietnam gives a misleading impression of how many people we had fighting in Vietnam at any time. Now, what's interesting is that it doesn't tell you on the link how they calculate their manpower numbers......your assuming your position is correct. It doesn't have to tell me on the link. I know how tours in Vietnam worked and how it was different in WWI or WWII or Korea. The link said it mentioned the total number service members world wide at the time and the total deployed to South East Asia. Those figures are simple. What it doesn't list is the maximum that was deployed at any one time or the average amount deployed during the conflict. The peak deployment was 543 thousand in April of 69. The peak deployment in the Gulf war was slightly higher at about 560k . In WWI and WWII and Korea the peak number is a higher percentage of the total number because most of the people sent to combat where there for the duration. Further, if you look at the numbers of deaths in the Vietnam War, the number is higher than even the number for the Korean War which had an even higher manpower total. Mainly because Vietnam lasted so much longer then Korea. That isn't exactly an indication that overwhelming force was used. In general the number of deaths among Americans is a better example of either how powerful the enemy was or in the case of Vietnam how poorly the US executed (mostly on a strategic level, on a tactical level we were often overwhelmingly successful, in an odd way that might have hurt us as the success would keep us from thinking we needed to reevaluate our strategy). But as I pointed out before the total number that fought, or I would add even the amount fighting at an particular time is not an indication of overwhelming force. Overwhelming force has to be force applied in such a way as to overwhelm the enemy. When he is hurt or weak you just pound on him harder. In Vietnam we were strategically on the defense. We didn't seek out the enemies center to destroy it, rather we left North Vietnam as a haven subject only to bombing not invasion, and even the bombing had numerous halts and many off limits militarily important targets. We applied a lot of force and sent many people to fight but the force we used was applied in such a way that the enemy would never be totally overwhelmed. Apparently the thought was that we could hurt the enemy a bit and then they would sue for peace but they never did push for peace except as a delaying tactic or for peace on their terms rather then ours or some acceptable middle ground. Its clear you enter these posts under the self understood guise that you are coming from a position of neutrality and fairness. However, in reality, I think you have your own agenda and present it accordingly... I have opinions and agendas as much as the next guy, but I try to present them fairly and with focus on the issues. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next