kyotebue2 wrote:Tango will be out of the dawg house tomorrow/today.
Condi baiting is more fun!
Moderator: FU!UK Committee
kyotebue2 wrote:Tango will be out of the dawg house tomorrow/today.
TMP - killing off small companies!Editor in Chief Bill wrote:It also 'thins the herd' so to speak, so that marginal and under-financed companies fall off the radar, leaving the better managed companies to dominate the news sphere.
kyotebue2 wrote:Tango will be out of the dawg house tomorrow/today.
sebigboss79 wrote:I'm a triggered arsehole who likes Age of Smegmar...
Arnald wrote:Much as I have enjoyed the Vietnam war discussion can anybody explain to me why the USA leaders thought it was
a) A good idea to help the French?
b) In order to stop the spread of communism the USA leaders thought it best to wage a war in an area of SE Asia where they had no sane (in my opinion) reason to put USA troops? Especially because Ho Chi Minh was trying to win USA support by basing his constitution and declaration of independence directly upon the same lines as the USA constitution and declarations?
Anyone?
Arnald. Oh, and hi Bill.
Condottiero wrote:Arnald wrote:Much as I have enjoyed the Vietnam war discussion can anybody explain to me why the USA leaders thought it was
a) A good idea to help the French?
b) In order to stop the spread of communism the USA leaders thought it best to wage a war in an area of SE Asia where they had no sane (in my opinion) reason to put USA troops? Especially because Ho Chi Minh was trying to win USA support by basing his constitution and declaration of independence directly upon the same lines as the USA constitution and declarations?
Anyone?
Arnald. Oh, and hi Bill.
a) Britain ... In The Vietnam War?
But Britain was never involved in Vietnam? Find out why that's not quite true...
Picador wrote:Condottiero wrote:Arnald wrote:Much as I have enjoyed the Vietnam war discussion can anybody explain to me why the USA leaders thought it was
a) A good idea to help the French?
b) In order to stop the spread of communism the USA leaders thought it best to wage a war in an area of SE Asia where they had no sane (in my opinion) reason to put USA troops? Especially because Ho Chi Minh was trying to win USA support by basing his constitution and declaration of independence directly upon the same lines as the USA constitution and declarations?
Anyone?
Arnald. Oh, and hi Bill.
a) Britain ... In The Vietnam War?
But Britain was never involved in Vietnam? Find out why that's not quite true...
That was immediately postwar, you gurning fool. The Vietnam war hadn't got going yet. Anyway Britain had a vested interest, like France it was trying to hold on to its colonies in the Far East. America's intent was that postwar colonialism wasn't going to be a thing (now there's fucking irony). Fuck me, try harder you dolt.
Macunaima nli mm wrote:Condottiero wrote:Macunaima nli mm wrote:More to the point, I’m not sure Mao makes a meaningful distinction between tactics and strategy.
IIRC, he did make a distinction and there's one quote that's rather Clausewitzian: concerning the objective being the destruction of the enemy's army - I'd have to dig out my copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung for the paragraph.
Wonder what that is in the original, however. “Destruction of the enemy’s army” as a goal isn’t something that only Clausewitz came up with, either.
"War is the continuation of politics." In this sense war is politics and war itself is a political action; since ancient times there has never been a war that did not have a political character...
But war has its own particular characteristics and in this sense it cannot be equated with politics in general. "War is the continuation of politics by other ... means." When politics develops to a certain stage beyond which it cannot proceed by the usual means, war breaks out to sweep the obstacles from the way ... When the obstacle is removed and our political aim attained, the war will stop. But if the obstacle is not completely swept away, the war will have to continue till the aim is fully accomplished ... It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.
(3) Make wiping out the enemy's effective strength our main objective; do not make holding or seizing a city or place our main objective. Holding or seizing a city or place is the outcome of wiping out the enemy's effective strength, and often a city or place can be held or seized for good only after it has changed hands a number of times.
Macunaima nli mm wrote:Back to the main point: Gibson believes the U.S. was far too tied to a mechanistic way of waging war. I’d say history since he’s wrote the book has born him out.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests