SL Insurgency: When/Where/How Will It Strike Next?

they are called Marine snipers and they aren't tied up in Afghanistan, now just they way you responding makes me think you are air force (not a slight or anything like that)

The fact is the US didn't with the Korean war. It's not even a matter of semantics, it just didn't happen that way. The war was unwinnable with out nukes so the US cut it's losses and agreed to peace negotiations

well for one thing the US didn't decide squat, it was the UN who did the deciding. so theres point one out the window, now as for it being unwinnable without nukes, at the time of the outbreak of war the US didn't have a nuke in its arsenal, they dropped all they had in reserve at Bikinni, now at the end of the war they did have them stockpiled but they were in Europe due to the Soviet threat, now you also have to remember that the US wasn't even the largest combatant, we just supplied everybody. and it sounds like you think the US was the agressor in Korea, you might want to examine your semantics some more on that one, figure out where exactly you stand before trying to argue it with a historian

Never been in the Air Force, but if I had to do it over I would have been.

I'm glad you armchair generals are not in charge of anything. Read some history, talk to some soldiers, turn off the war movies, pick up some books and learn something.

oh you want to discuss the military with me? i was in the Marines for 6 years, i am an historian with a degree from NC State, now don't attack just debate

Down boys... no one claimed to have a bigger 'gun'...

Can we say off topic? This started as a discussion about the attacks on SL (albeit in a 'rouse the masses to panic' way). If this is about Iraq it should be in Off Topic.

As for the attacks on SL...yes, they need to get a handle on them. No, I don't claim to know how they should do that, but posting your "Raise arms" threads is not a good way to go about it Jamie.

you know what Jeanette is right, truce Flavian? since it seems we are both too hard headed to realize that each of us is right and wrong at the same time.

China was the largest combatant. Mac Aurther who was relieved of command (thank goodness) after he called for the use of nukes in Korea. Any nuke europe could be move to the pacific in the matter of a few days if needed

The US went to the UN for permission to go into North Korea. It was a US action with UN backing and several countries UN troops in for the cause.

After reading your comments above I still don't see how you think the US won the Korean war. So did the UN win?

the UN did achieve what they set out to do from the beginning which was to restore the prewar borders. and since they did that i would say it is safe to say they won, since the communists wanted to takeover the whole pennisula and that didn't happen, i would say they lost, so based on each sides objectives the UN acheived theirs while the Communists did not, and isn't achieving objectives what wars are fought over or am i missing something?

oh and South Korea was the largest combatant, they had more troops involved than any of the others. and for the record i agree that relieving MacArthur was the best thing, too bad Roosevelt didn't do it during WW2

USMC, awsome, thank you for your service to our country.

Do I want to discuss military with you? I thought thats what we are doing.

It's not an attack, I never called you names or attempted to make derogatory comments about what service your in. I would say I'm suprised that you have a History degree and know as much as you do about the Korean conflict.

and i quote
I'm glad you armchair generals are not in charge of anything. Read some history, talk to some soldiers, turn off the war movies, pick up some books and learn something.


this is what i took offense at, hence the don't attack just debate, i was just making sure this stayed a debate and didn't disentegrate into useless name calling.

well my area of study was WW2/Cold War, and you deserve some commendations you know alot about it as well

This thread makes me wanna puke.

tough titty

China has the largest force that comprised of just under 800,000 troops.

tough titty

Thank you for the comment.

I apologise for my remarks that were generalised and not directed to you specificly.

Good, dont read it if you don't like it.

-------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm done because I don't like debating against other military guys. I agree to disagree on this topic.

China only committed around 300,000 soldiers at any given time, they had the majority of thier army stationed in Manchuria because they were skirmishing with the Soviets some, and they had a large contingent across from Taiwan. where as South korea had 350,000-400,000 men in uniform in the late stages of the war

It's disturbing that people throw around terms like that so lightly - as if the taking of a human life is the same thing as the grid going down for a few hours.

I feel sorry for those people who use terms like "internet terrorist" in regards to a virtual world being down a few hours, but at the same time I'm glad they've never actually come face to face with true terrorism or its aftermath, and I hope they never do.

I'm sure those women and children in Darfur would gladly trade places with somebody who thinks a virtual world going down for a few hours is "terrorism".

Ditto




Please tell me you people are being sarcastic. You can't really think it's right to invade a country and steal control of their resources??

Jamie is never, and never has been, sarcastic.

Not only does she think it's right, she thinks it's wonderful.

Agreed. I hope they never do either, no one should.

After reading the most recent posts though, I'm suddenly not at all surprised at the lack of a reasonable grasp on reality and thinking a few people could learn some lessons from trading places for awhile.

Its not a question of right and wrong. Its a question of national security and the American way of life.

Now, as much as I respect my fellow human being, when it comes to maintaining my welfare (or my nation's) or theirs.... well, I'm going to pick mine. Nationalism gets a bad rap these days, but its not wrong to be patriotic. I'm proud to be an American, proud to own an oversized house, and proud to drive around a fairly large SUV that gets 9 miles to the gallon. Like it or not, this is the American way of life and I damn well intend to defend it.

And hell yeah I want to keep it.

Wow. It is people like you who should be publicly shamed daily until statements like that are no longer the norm. Unless you are using that SUV to haul large groups of people over mountainous terrain with no roads, you should be ashamed to be seen in it, not proud.

No that is not the American way of life, it is a selfish way of life. Some may think it is worth defending, but not all of us choose to sacrifice the rights and needs of others to make our own lives more comfortable.

I don't pretend to be the polar opposite of you. I don't always recycle the newspapers I buy, I tend to run the AC at home a little more often than I need to, and I do pay for and put gas in my car about once a week to get around too (small car with just enough room for my small needs, great gas mileage ty.. 20$ and I'm set for the week) . But I'm aware that America is not the great land of the Gods. We do not deserve to have better lives than others simply because we're here.


It is absolutely a question of moral right and wrong. I feel sorry for you that you can not see that.



Two different concepts

patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it

nationalism: the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other

You're right, patriotism is not wrong, nationalism is.