It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
at least the other guy didn't write much. wrong answer!
Originally posted by michaelbrux
there are no mysterious answers.
the only answer that matters is that all your wars have come to an end, your leaders are dead or in jail and what's left of your men at arms only come out under cover of darkness and don't even cause much of a problem.
you've been reduced to an army of conspiracy forum rumor mongers and hackers that barely get airtime on the MSM.
and America is going to making more money than before the war after its shook up population gets over its PTSD...
and your question was?
Your answer ranks right up there with the kid from The Christmas Story using his decoder ring to discover it was a commercial to drink more ovaltine...damn..in the words of Florida...Damn Damn Damn
"what single event caused the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan beginning on May 15, 1988?
the answer can be given in one sentence...what's is it?"
Seriously you tell us that the answer is one sentence and you hand us that for the answer...I'll go with the misinformation...
edit on 25-5-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)
the only answer that matters is that all your wars have come to an end, your leaders are dead or in jail and your men at arms only come out under cover of darkness and don't even cause much of a problem
Originally posted by Germanicus
Originally posted by Tazkven
reply to post by Germanicus
Speaking the truth isn't being rude. I stated exactly what you did through the course of this thread. The flow of THIS thread and how you flip flop IS being on topic but obviously not the conversation you wish to have.
Well it seems you have a problem with more than just this thread. You have made that clear. I will have any conversation you like. And I am conflicted to be honest. Like I said,just because you are a paranoid defensive scared American doesnt mean Im anti-american because I have the audacity to be critical of the United States Government. It affects me too. You would see that if you were not so scared and egocentric.
But you are being padantic at best. If you point out the specific problems I will include an apology in the thread for you.
Originally posted by Germanicus
They are looking to move their military bullies primarily into the pacific.
Originally posted by Germanicus
I think Afghanistan will be better off when they get rid of the United states. Vietnam turned out fine.
Originally posted by Germanicus
The US almost has an obligation to protect these people now that they have involved themselves.
Originally posted by michaelbrux
the reason I know this thread is bunk and that people that support its premise are full of crap is that it paints a picture that no matter what the US does...it is doomed to fail.
if the US stays in Afghanistan it loses.
if the US leaves Afghanistan it loses.
if the US sits on the fence between Afghanistan and somewhere else it loses.
no matter what, you are trying to sell the idea of the US losing whatever it does.
that's how I know YOU are all full of #.
Originally posted by olliemc84
reply to post by Germanicus
Your wrong. The United States actually won the Tet Offensive. The communists lost 70% of their fighting force during the Tet Offensive due to not being well versed in actually attacking the ARVN and US armed forces in a face to face battle.
I really don't know where you get your facts from. My uncle earned a bronze star in Vietnam. And we have talked at length about his time overseas. He said the war was won early on, but political factors handcuffed the soldiers in winning the war outright.
On 9 June President Johnson replaced Westmoreland as commander of MACV with General Creighton W. Abrams. Although the decision had been made in December 1967 and Westmoreland was made Army Chief of Staff, many saw his relief as punishment for the entire Tet debacle.[216] Abrams' new strategy was quickly demonstrated by the closure of the "strategic" Khe Sanh base and the ending of multi-division "search and destroy" operations. Also gone were discussions of victory over North Vietnam. Abrams' new "One War" policy centered the American effort on the takeover of the fighting by the South Vietnamese (through Vietnamization), the pacification of the countryside, and the destruction of communist logistics.[217] The new administration of President Richard M. Nixon would oversee the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the continuation of negotiations
I would like to see him travel to the US and spout off at the mouth at the wrong place at the wrong time. Couple of "good 'ole boys" would teach him to learn to keep his trap shut.
Originally posted by Germanicus
Originally posted by olliemc84
reply to post by Germanicus
Your wrong. The United States actually won the Tet Offensive. The communists lost 70% of their fighting force during the Tet Offensive due to not being well versed in actually attacking the ARVN and US armed forces in a face to face battle.
I really don't know where you get your facts from. My uncle earned a bronze star in Vietnam. And we have talked at length about his time overseas. He said the war was won early on, but political factors handcuffed the soldiers in winning the war outright.
I already said that it wasnt a typical 'victory' and that many died. You are wrong. The Tet Offensive was the turning point. They shocked the Americans and it was genius moving everything into place. Casualties are not something that tells the full story momentum shifted. and...
On 9 June President Johnson replaced Westmoreland as commander of MACV with General Creighton W. Abrams. Although the decision had been made in December 1967 and Westmoreland was made Army Chief of Staff, many saw his relief as punishment for the entire Tet debacle.[216] Abrams' new strategy was quickly demonstrated by the closure of the "strategic" Khe Sanh base and the ending of multi-division "search and destroy" operations. Also gone were discussions of victory over North Vietnam. Abrams' new "One War" policy centered the American effort on the takeover of the fighting by the South Vietnamese (through Vietnamization), the pacification of the countryside, and the destruction of communist logistics.[217] The new administration of President Richard M. Nixon would oversee the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the continuation of negotiations
en.wikipedia.org...
The Tet Offensive turned the tide. The wiki article is obviously written by an American so the opinion is biased like that of your uncle. Talk to some vietnamese celebrating the Tet Offensive with fireworks and you will get a different opinion.
The Tet Offensive turned the tide. It is clear. So it was a victory.
Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by olliemc84
I would like to see him travel to the US and spout off at the mouth at the wrong place at the wrong time. Couple of "good 'ole boys" would teach him to learn to keep his trap shut.
But not you hey. I am not anti-american. I disagree with the American Governments foreign policy. So do alot of people. I know that you must love Obama and his foriegn policy but some peopel disagree.That is what I am interested in. American foriegn policy. It impacts me all the way in Australia believe it or not. If you do not like my threads do not read them.edit on 25-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)
The only thing that turned the tide of the war was the public disapproval of Vietnam after seeing the massive amount of Vietnamese casualties from the Tet Offensive.