Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (131895)	5/6/2004 5:49:41 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

story.news.yahoo.com Why do I get the impression this guy OBL doesn't want to make friends and doesn't want to negotiate.? Sig

To: TimF who wrote (131895)	5/7/2004 6:28:53 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi twfowler; Re: "Not extraordinary in terms of the % of the population killed in the conflict but rather in that the North took such high and disproportionate level of casualties in an effort to conquer the south and then kept going and won." No, taking that level of casualties in a "war of aggression" is not at all extraordinary. We don't do it very often, but when two industrialized nations go at it toe to toe for most of a decade, even the winners look like crap. Re: "If they took that level of casualties and then lost it wouldn't be extraordinary, if they took that level of casualties directly defending the north from invasion it wouldn't have been unusual and if two relatively equal sides bashed each other until they had Vietnam level casualties it would not have been unusual." You're analyzing the situation from the point of view of the US, which is a mistake. The US point of view sees North Vietnam as the aggressor. It should be clear that in most wars, both sides consider the other to be the aggressor, and redefines the facts of the situation accordingly. From the North Vietnamese point of view, their fight was not a "war of aggression", but instead was a liberation of the southern half of their country from under the foot of a foreign occupier. I would guess that it would really bother you to have to admit this sort of thing, and I don't expect you to, LOL; but from the point of view of figuring out whether or not the other side is going to fight hard, the world will be less "extraordinary" if you quit looking at it through US colored glasses. So let me work a little harder at making you see the simple reality rather than the complicated fantasy. Note that you use the phrase "directly defending the north from invasion". What is this "north" you're talking about??? "North" Vietnam didn't exist before the war. It didn't exist after the war. So where is this "north" that you think might have reasonably defended itself in the event of an invasion??? All the "north" was, was a region of Vietnam that happened to be militarily occupied and politically controlled by a force that operated against US interests. It's like you want to deny the fact Vietnam was a single country, and instead, briefly for the purposes of making a point, define "North" Vietnam as a country. Now let me rephrase your statement into the language of the US Civil War. In that war, if you recall, the southern states in the US renounced their US membership and declared themselves to be a sovereign country. The "North" then conducted a war to force them to return to the fold. Would you be surprised that the "North" United States was willing to accept high casualties to "conquer" the Confederacy? Here, let me quote your comment precisely as you wrote, it but think of it in the context of the brutal US Civil war rather than the brutal Vietnamese Civil War that we unpleasantly walked into: Not extraordinary in terms of the % of the population killed in the conflict but rather in that the North took such high and disproportionate level of casualties in an effort to conquer the South and then kept going and won. If they took that level of casualties and then lost it wouldn't be extraordinary, if they took that level of casualties directly defending the North from invasion it wouldn't have been unusual and if two relatively equal sides bashed each other until they had Vietnam level casualties it would not have been unusual. #reply-20101736 Do you see how your own paragraph can be used to describe the US Civil War? Do you understand why it was that the North was willing to accept such high casualties in order to reunite the US? -- Carl