KipWellsFan

QUOTE(qwerty @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 04:16 PM) Has a bunch of no names in it.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 12:04 PM) There's a difference between Bacon and Ham in America. I thought there was here too.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 11:55 AM) Well, for one thing, that stuff you guys call "bacon"... It's f***ing HAM Gawddammit!!! I have no idea what you're talking about. Don't Americans call ham bacon as well?

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 10:55 AM) Don't take offense to it, it was just a simple question. I just get sick and tired of your posts complaing about the U.S. and all of those articles. Have you ever posted an article of goodness from the U.S.? I don't go around posting bad articles about Canada. I haven't posted many true, but others do to balance it out. And I encourage you to post bad articles about Canada if you want.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 10:46 AM) Do you ever have anything nice to say about the U.S.? Get over youselves, I do when they deserve it.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 08:51 AM) North Korea, perhaps? No that's what would have happened to South Vietnam if Thieu remained in power in the South. If only Ho Chi Minh had lived for like 30 more years.

QUOTE(whitesoxmurph @ Apr 1, 2005 -> 12:15 AM) Kip, why would we hate you for expressing your opinion. People like myself and Nuke made a concious decision to defend your right to think what you want on any subject and defend our country. I hope that your class on the Vietnam War will include some alternative views and not just the typical "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place". If you talk to a lot of the commanders on the ground during Vietnam, you will get some interesting insights. The biggest of which is the fact that the congress and executive branch of the government need let the Military commanders in country and at the Pentagon, run the Tactical portion of any war. Strategic and Political constraints should be carefully applied, as to not effect the Tactical operations. I am not saying that the legislative branch of the Gov. should not have a say, but in the case of Vietnam, for example, the decision to stop bombing the North came at a time when most commanders on the ground were just starting to notice the logistical effects of the bombing on the enemy. I also seriously disagree with your Nuclear premise. I do not think that the Soviets would go to war over the sinking of a freighter or two. As far as the nuclear option for the U S, just wouldn't have happened, nuclear weapons did not have a good tactical application in Vietnam and we would never attack the Soviets or the Chinese on a Strategic level for a Tactical outcome in a different theater. I would be interested to hear what your instructor/professor has to say about the Tet offensive. Well from what I've learned recently is that the US sort of knew there was an offensive coming from the Vietcong or whatever you want to call them. The problem was they thought it was only going to be at Khesanh and not widespread across the country as it was. The US and and ARVN were able to stave off the Vietcong including massive bombing around Khesanh. Massive casualties were inflicted upon the Vietcong and it took them a few years to regenerate their forces for further offensives. While the US/ARVN won this battle they lost it in public opinion. People thought the US was winning and when the Vietcong were able to stage this incredible offensive everyone was up in arms. Also many commanders on the ground at that time were giving variable reports of what was really going on and I believe the CIA consistently reported that things weren't getting any better over there.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 10:10 AM) From what I understand, Iraq themselves went out of their way to mislead not only their own people, but also parts of their military. On occasion, even Saddam was lied to by his sons, telling him they had a level of preparedness that wasn't true. So if they don't know or lie to appear stonger, how are we supposed to be accurate? This just doesn't come as a surprise to me. Well Rex the report goes farther than saying they just had bad info http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...pies050331.html That's what concerns me.

It would benefit him to get a few more starts under his belt at the lower levels and besides we already have a pretty solid starting 5. When you consider what we are paying them and unless there are injuries or Contreras goes to complete s*** we won't be seeing Brandon right away.

Let's not forget that the picking out of targets was to avoid World War III with China and Russia. Nixon on the other hand just said f*** it lets risk it all starting bombing Hanoi and mining Soviet utilized ports, risking it all. Of course as history says it didn't bring Russia or China in but it earned very little if anything. If a Republican administration was in power at the beginning of the war there is very little doubt in my mind that Nuclear weapons would have been used.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 11:19 PM) Good guy like McNamara?!?! OMG!!! I think you're confusing this with the Cuban missile crisis. McNamara was a DISASTER!! Both him and Johnson. The 2 of the would sit in the White house basement at all hours of the night picking out individual targets for the Air Force to bomb which had almost no military value but wouldn't make them look bad politically. The 2 of them allowed the NVA to build, what was at the time, the most sophisticated and deadly air defense system in the world by placing air defense installations off limits to bombing until after they were completed. This policy directly led to the death and capture of hundreds of US pilots. This and many other examples of their mismanagement were why this war was as long and deadly as it was. The war itself was just, imho, but the way this cast of flunkies at the highest levels fought it was utterly tragic. Yah I can't imagine how well the war would have went under Goldwater or Wallace! Like I said the War was extremely dumb and poorly executed. But bombing in the right place wouldn't have done s***, the NLF and PAVN were going to fight to the last man because they were fighting for their freedom, for most it wasn't for communism, they were fighting for their lives. And that's really the basic issue that was always ignored.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 11:15 PM) Her chest isn't anorexic It looks like she's got 4 of them in that picture.

I'm in a class about the Vietnam War now and I can't believe how dumb this War was. There was such an ignorance of basic issues by the US government I'm surprised that there wasn't eventually a complete overthrow of the government, and then to go and elect Richard Nixon? WTF. As bad as it's going to sound if you were to assign good guy and bad guy in this war, the US would have to be the bad guy. THe US was lucky to have a guy like McNamara in there for as long as they did to fight the Joint Chiefs and make sure it didn't turn nuclear. don't hate me

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 10:49 PM) I think you guys still have a ways to go especially since you just recently let back into Canada the guy who recruited the LAX Millenium bomber. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151541,00.html Well it sounds like they are probably keeping track of him and besides assassinating him there's probably nothing much else they can do. Fact is there is no perfect solution to terrorists, you can't kill em all, you can't expose em all. You need creativity. Edit: even then this is coming from the O'Reilly Factor and I'm instantly skeptic about anything from that show.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 07:51 PM) Terrorists have already been arrested coming in through Canada. IIRC, one was arrested trying to enter Washington state right before New Year's eve of 1999. Apparently he planned to set off a bomb in LA during the New Year celebrations. I need more information than that and since 9/11 things have tightened up. I think we're doing a pretty good job on our border.

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 07:28 PM) Agreed. Brutal nose. I think it's cute, but that's just me.

QUOTE(Chisoxrd5 @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 07:14 PM) If horses looked like her, I would have some nasty saddlesores...

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story.htm...98-ef04204578d5 I recently saw someone write that terrorists were coming through Canada and I'm just wondering where they got their information from?

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 06:51 PM) Yep, that settles it, she looks just like a horse. I do see it a little bit but she still rules.

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 05:37 PM) If seals weren't fat, cute, and defenseless no one would care. Maybe, but does that make it anymore acceptible?

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 03:16 PM) I'll take indirectly harming wildlife over viciously murdering baby mammals any day. I can agree with that, but I don't like it either way.

a horsea Penelope Cruz Please, lets not compare the 2

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 04:04 PM) It's just a shame she looks like a horse.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 11:57 AM) I've always thought that they did it to control the population of the seals. Isn't this pretty comparable to hunting season around here? If it weren't for that, we'd have an over-population of deer... I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with controlling seal populations.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Mar 31, 2005 -> 01:46 PM) I'm happy to see other countries ban as well. But with the US drilling, I'm all for it, but that's complete different story. Indirectly harming wildlife instead of directly harming wildlife for economic purposes is okay?