100 most influencial people of the 20th centuary.

Started by Arachnoidfreak6 pages

Tucker Max is at least #93. At least.

Originally posted by eleveninches
That was my point. THe most powerful country in the world got its a$$ kicked by a 3rd world country.
But the point was that america NEVER actually admitted defeat in vietnaam. They called it a tactical withdrawal, so, for all intents and purposes, the war is still going on.

the last few years vietnam has steadily been growing and developing, but it is still rife with corruption...

the effects of the war are still shown today in the culture of vietnam, you wouldn't believe some of the stories i've heard...

tis a beautiful country though... one of the untouched gems of asia...

No side actually admitted defeat, which is why no US ships are ever allowed in vietnaamese waters

that's true... though relations are alot less strained than before...

I believe the term was "raggedy-arsed fourth rate country." ✅

Ever since WW2 ended, america has not known how to fight a war. All they know how to do is arragne a bombing campaign. They have no idea how to make intelligent military decicions.

The war in iraq, for example:
The British troops advanced slowly and carefully across iraq in order to make sure they targeted the enemy and minimised civilian casualties.
The americans, however, just advanced as fast as possible (wanting to reach baghdad quickly), and fired at anything that got in their way, disregarding any civilian casualties.
The US army has nowhere near the discipline and training as the British army does.

I believe the term was "raggedy-arsed fourth rate country."

vietnam? really... so does that disclude the fact it has one of the fastest growing economies in asia?

The US army has nowhere near the discipline and training as the British army does.

imo it has to do with bad leadership... i'm sure there are plenty of great american troops being herded by assholes...

/\the US regular army just recruits whoever it can find to enlist.
The UK army tends to be rather more selective in who it will take to be a soldier. The officer training is second to none, and the UK army has one of the most disciplined armies in the world.

i'm not disputing that, i'm just saying that i'll bet there are plenty of good men and women in the u.s. army...

being a good person is not the same as being an effective soldier.
In fact, most war crimes in iraq were caused by the lack of discipline. A well-trained soldier would not have let their emotions to cause them to do anything illegal. They should be professional about the job that they do.

when i said good men and women i meant good soldiers...

you can be both...

The officer training is second to none, and the UK army has one of the most disciplined armies in the world
not the ones I have encounterd and I met a lot of them, they got one big problem.......they dont listen cause they think they know it all

"They should be professional about the job that they do."

Anyone in the army etc is professional about their job. How professional do you have to be to kill someone with a gun or a bomb? The term you are looking for is ethical, I believe. Or "moral". Even then, it's stretching it.

Bill Hicks would make my list, easily.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"They should be professional about the job that they do."

Anyone in the army etc is professional about their job. How professional do you have to be to kill someone with a gun or a bomb? The term you are looking for is ethical, I believe. Or "moral". Even then, it's stretching it.

Bill Hicks would make my list, easily.

-AC

if soldiers let their ethics or their opinions of "right and wrong" , then they could end up killing loads of people, believing that they were doing the right thing.

What they should do is to obay orders and follow the codes of war (geneva convention), regardless of how emotional they may feel.

(geneva convention)
nobody gives a shit about the GC in times of war

/\that's when things like the holocaust happen ❌

Originally posted by eleveninches

if soldiers let their ethics or their opinions of "right and wrong" , then they could end up killing loads of people, believing that they were doing the right thing.

What they should do is to obay orders and follow the codes of war (geneva convention), regardless of how emotional they may feel.

they did it in nam, they're still doing it... but its not all...

that's when things like the holocaust happen
well genocide is what happen during war, its a shame but its the truth

thats why they have the GC.
there's no point in it if it is ignored during wartime. It is meant to be a guideline for the limits in wartime

well certain people are just too stupid to have respect for other human beings in wartime... gc or not...