Page 6901 of 7427

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:03 pm
by General Paranoia
kyotebue2 wrote:Tango will be out of the dawg house tomorrow/today.

Condi baiting is more fun!

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:04 pm
by Guest
kyotebue2 wrote:Tango will be out of the dawg house tomorrow/today.

Which is sad.
TMP has actually looked like a real wargaming site this last week, instead of a collection of “Now it can be revealed!” tabloid links.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:11 pm
by Arnald
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.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:57 pm
by Condottiero
sebigboss79 wrote:I'm a triggered arsehole who likes Age of Smegmar...

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:12 pm
by Condottiero
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...


b)Ho only paid lip service to democratic rights, demonstrating more an interest in grabbing power, at the expense of other anti-French groups.
Remembering Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 Declaration of Vietnam’s Independence

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:25 pm
by Picador
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.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:33 pm
by Condottiero
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.

It had a significant bearing on eventual US involvement...

A Jungle Too Far: Britain and the Vietnam War

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:12 pm
by Yoooooo
Don’t forget there were also ANZAC, Thai, South Korean and Filipino troops fighting alongside the Americans.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:58 pm
by Arnald
Wow, Condi, really triggered there. I really canot be arsed to read your half arsed links,I expected more of you and was again disappointed. I have google and was expecting a reaosned debate.

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:00 pm
by Condottiero
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.

True, as similarities could be found in all treatises, but the influence is difficult to deny and more than likely acquired through study: he attended schools where Western subjects were taught. Even before the Cultural Revolution, there was a desire to discard the classics, as these were tainted by the old order.

From "On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II. pp. 152-53
"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.


Passage regarding the destruction of the enemy - "The Present Situation and Our Tasks" (December 25, 1947) Selected Military Writings, 2nd ed. pp349-50
(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.

Agreed...