France is now a strong US Ally?

[metadigital]

the US didn't actually lose a single battle in vietnam.  we certainly lost a lot of people.  we simply lost the propaganda war back home and had to pull out.

 

that's not to say it was a good idea... just that calling vietnam a "loss" really isn't very accurate.

The North Vietnamese beat the US by enduring, while support back in the US for the war withered away. That's still a defeat. Most Vietnamese people I know find it bizarre and ridiculous that some in the US still claim they didn't lose in Viet Nam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason that North Vietnam wasn't turned into a car park was the direct result of President Johnson hobbling the US war effort. The mythology grew up to to fill in the gaps.

[Dark Moth]

It also has to do a lot with the mindset of the Vietnamese and Americans. The Americans, in their stereotypical views, thought the "g**ks" would fall easily. But in reality, they have a tenacity that we did not, and maybe still do not understand. We Americans tend to mope about "America's Longest War". Deep down, they were laughing at us. It took them hundreds of years to drive the Mongols out, many years (I can't remember how many) to drive the French out, and then we come along. To them, by then it was just the same old stuff.

 

We Americans as well as many western nations sometimes tend to be more sensitive than other nations when it comes to losses. Don't get me wrong, I'm upset by casualties as anyone would be. I'd like to think it's because we place a higher value on life. Any amount of casualties is bad, IMO. But we wept and moaned over the loss of our soldiers, but they were losing many more, and yet still could out-endure us. So in many ways, Vietnam was doomed from the start. That's one reason why the opponents we face in the Middle East today look at us as a "paper tiger". They look at our actions in the past, and believe that we'll turn and run with our tails between our legs once the casualties start to get to us.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Mothman

[Volourn]

"And so has the US by the way. (Vietnam, but I don't find that as anything to make fun of) "

 

I say one thing, for a loser the US sure came out of that war relatively unbloodied comapred to their opponent. LOL

 

 

"They look at our actions in the past, and believe that we'll turn and run with our tails between our legs once the casualties start to get to us."

 

1. The US (and other Western nations) also have some history of winning some impressive wars. It seems to me people shouldn't forget how the US became a nation in the first place with the defeat of the vastly superior British army (with help from France of course).

 

2. The 'opponents' in the ME should look at their history before accusing others of being 'Paper Tigers'. Afterall, the 'opponents' can't even beat a small country like Isreal, and they've been trying to wipe it out for YEARS and have lost multiple wars during their attempts to do so.

 

 

LOL

Edited March 11, 2006 by Volourn

[taks]

I never said that you felt France was the reason why Germany lost.  You mentioned that France lost to Russia.  So did the German Army, which is the one that defeated France in such a way that results in all of the jokes.  I'm not sure what your point would be though.  So what if France lost to Russia?  They lost to Russia after conquering good chunks of Europe.

i think there's some confusion in the points that each of us made... it goes back about 4 posts, and i don't have the real patience, time, or inclination to get into it right now. suffice it to say, i think we're both trying to refer to something neither of us intended to say.

 

Note that the post I was replying to was well before you mentioned the Russian Winter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i know, i was just pointing out that i had mentioned it... i.e. i was merely mentioning that i agreed with you.

 

taks

Edited March 11, 2006 by taks

[taks]

Well, the US didn't succeed in their objectives...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

unfortunately, the "objectives" were not very well defined, IMO, nor were the reasons.

 

and, meshugger, i think your statement is probably spot on.

 

defining the term "loss" for a war (uh, "military action") is difficult. militarily, the US did not lose, not even close. politically, they lost big-time.

 

right or not, the last one is the important one.

 

taks

[taks]

I say one thing, for a loser the US sure came out of that war relatively unbloodied comapred to their opponent. LOL

that's the crux of the military vs. political outcome of a war. militarily, we were 20:1 (our 1, their 20) in terms of casualties - including equipment losses. politically, well, we're still having the discussion, aren't we!

 

taks

Edited March 11, 2006 by taks

[alanschu]

Well, my point is just that, while I enjoy a good joke about the French, I find it's just a result of their performance in WW2, which represented a huge change in modern warfare. The only completely boneheaded thing they really did was Maginot line IMO.

[taks]

i agree it is only because of WW2. never doubted that. the reasoning, btw, is that veterans are still alive as are their children and grand-children.

 

the only descendant i know that actually tells stories from his grandfather, has nothing but contempt for the french.

 

either way, who cares, poking fun at the cheese eatin' surrender monkeys is a hoot!

 

taks

[Lucius]

That's my question entirely, why is it fun? The Germans were superior in every respect, and cought them (albeit in what seems like a bit silly now) situation.

 

It might be because I'm from a third party country, I just don't get it.

[Dark Moth]

I don't think there's any one reason for it. Maybe because they make such an easy target. Same way I don't think anybody understands the sudden explosion in "Chuck Norris" jokes. :D Though it may have something to do with Walker, Texas Ranger, which just the other day I heard someone describe as Power Rangers for adults.

[Lucius]

Eeeew, Chuck.

 

I think I get it.

[Colrom]

However, the dozen people involved in Abu Ghraib have been or are in the process of being tried for their deeds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm reading a book by an expert on the development of torture techniques who asserts that the Abu Ghraib photos do not just show examples of wild late night antics by a few out of control guards but rather show good examples of the implementation of CIA torture techniques using sensory deprivation, self inflicted injury, and ego assualt - techniques which start right at the moment of capture when captives are hooded, blindfolded, and earmuffed, and then forced to assume high stress positions.

 

Apparantly these techniques were developed over many years of research and can be considered completely successful when the victims try to kill themselves and then discover that they won't even be allowed to die unless the torturer wants them to.

 

These techniques do not come naturally to guards and interrogators. They are learned by training.

 

This expert saw the pictures the rest of us saw and said "I recognize those methods."

 

He probably also recognized the "I'll shove my tools in your mouth and push your head around as I see fit" technique (otherwise known as the "your body is my plaything technique") we all got to see right out in the open with the US "Medic" and Saddam video.

 

I think the real masters of torture are many and not yet brought to account.

 

Hopefully that will yet happen.

Edited March 11, 2006 by Colrom

[Dark Moth]

In all fairness though, France is hardly the pansy surrender-monkey nation we like to make it out to be (at least in the historical sense). France's history is loaded with conflicts, and Europe twice in its history had to unify against France just to counter and end its expansionist tendancies. (Age of French Absolutism under Louis XVI and the Napoleonic Era)

[thepixiesrock]

In all fairness though, France is hardly the pansy surrender-monkey nation we like to make it out to be

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"We" as in who?

[Dark Moth]

As in, those who like to make jokes about France being pansy surrender-monkeys.

[thepixiesrock]

But why do you make jokes about France?

[Dark Moth]

Dunno. Probably the same reason some people now seem to like to joke about Chuck Norris. We (as in all Americans who make said jests) don't know, it's just fun to do. Though I'm willing to bet some people do it out of genuine dislike for the French. :D And just so you know, I don't make jokes about France often. I just decided to use this forum as an opportunity to post some bad France jokes.

 

BTW, did you know that there's no such thing as tornados, Chuck Norris just doesn't like trailer parks?

Edited March 12, 2006 by Mothman

[thepixiesrock]

I loathe fad jokes.

[Dark Moth]

Chuck Norris kills twelve white guys every weekend - just to prove he's not racist!

 

"

Edited March 12, 2006 by Mothman

[Dark_Raven]

During Napoleon

[taks]

But why do you make jokes about France?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

because the phrase "cheese eatin' surrender monkeys" is just so danged funny... and at the expense of the french no less!

 

taks

[metadigital]

  I'd like to think it's because we place a higher value on US citizens' life. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fixed.

[Dark Moth]

That's what I meant.

 

Actually, I was referring to western nations in general. But I'm glad to see you other nations place such a high value on our lives!

[metadigital]

However, the dozen people involved in Abu Ghraib have been or are in the process of being tried for their deeds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm reading a book by an expert on the development of torture techniques who asserts that the Abu Ghraib photos do not just show examples of wild late night antics by a few out of control guards but rather show good examples of the implementation of CIA torture techniques using sensory deprivation, self inflicted injury, and ego assualt - techniques which start right at the moment of capture when captives are hooded, blindfolded, and earmuffed, and then forced to assume high stress positions.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds just boarding school sixth form detention ... :D

[metadigital]

That's what I meant. 

 

Actually, I was referring to western nations in general.  But I'm glad to see you other nations place such a high value on our lives! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was emphasizing the fact that preservation of human life was relative; i.e. US > rest-of-the-world, for the US.