The Cold War

[Hyperion2]

Besides, if the stronger side always wins, then what happened with Vietnam?

There was a major administration change in the middle of the Vietnam War, which led to an early withdrawl of American presence.

The Viet Cong were fighting in blatant violation of all existing legislation regarding the "rules" of combat...attaching bombs to children, false surrenders, etc, just to name a few.  And because they were a legitimate military force, the US was obligated to abide by said rules, despite getting our tails handed to us because the VC was violating the same.

That said, no one can predict what the future might have held had the US not withdrawn from Vietnam when we did.  We may have won, we may have lost.  We'll never know, so it's really a moot debate.

Assuming the Viet Cong won, which isn't a stretch considering the above, then it's safe to say that the VC were in fact a stronger force, albeit illegitimately, because they won.

[Woodlouse2002]

Also, if you still insist that the stronger force will always win I would like to ask you exactly how America gained it's independence?

[Hyperion2]

By knowing the land, and how to use it to our advantage.  We were stronger.

You can give me examples all night.  The fact remains that the stronger force - that is the force that knows how to use things to their advantage, that is the force that knows how to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy - will ALWAYS win.

Perhaps the philisophical aspect of this is too much for some to accept, but the truth is that the team that wins will ALWAYS be the stronger team.

They may not have as many airplanes, as many people, or an arsenal as advanced as the other side.  But in some capacity, they are the strongest, or they would have lost.

If this is above your head, I apologize.  But I'm not going to sit here and say the same thing over and over and over and over just because some do not get it.  (Not that there's anything to get.  You've got two teams.  One wins.  One loses.  Which is the stronger team?)

[Hagar]

[quote]You can give me examples all night.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]

[Hyperion2]

I'm not at all contradicting myself...the stronger side always wins.  We're winning.  Therefore, we must be stronger.

[Hagar]

I see no point in continuing this discussion. Your original comment seems to imply that by the strongest you mean in a physical sense (sheer numbers & the latest technology) which is not necessarily true. You changed this later to mean that it's the side that uses its resources to the best advantage.

As to who is winning, what are you referring to? The situation in Iraq or the broader issue of global terrorism? Much as I would like to agree with you I think only the most optimistic amongst us would believe that. Now it's reared its ugly head I'm afraid this will be with us for the foreseeable future & the world will never be the same again. The irony is that we taught them these tactics in the first place.

[ATI_7500]

The Viet Cong were fighting in blatant violation of all existing legislation regarding the "rules" of combat...attaching bombs to children, false surrenders, etc, just to name a few.

And the extensive use of chemical weapons and napalm and events like My Lai remain unmentioned.

There's no way the war on terrorism can be won. Israel has been fighting terrorism for the last fifty years without any succes. They only could put a temporary halt to all terroristic actions by returning to the negotiation table.

P.S: If you projected your "stronger-weaker" babble on races, you'd just sound like Hitler in "Mein Kampf".

[Felix/FFDS]

And the extensive use of chemical weapons and napalm and events like My Lai remain unmentioned.

"extensive use of chemical weapons"  such as "Agent Orange"?  which was a defoilant, with, tragically, harmful side effects.  Quite unlike using mustard gas, ZyklonB, and more recently, Sarin in a subway station.

napalm ?  Deadly, of course, but a tactical weapon nonetheless.

Events like My Lai, regrettable, are not the norm (although you can find similar events throughout the history of the civilized world.  For that matter, why not bring out how "Black Jack" Pershing got his reputation?  My Lai pales in comparison to Lidice (and a few other towns in France), and what the VC would do to villagers even hinted of "collaboration" ...

There's no way the war on terrorism can be won. Israel has been fighting terrorism for the last fifty years without any succes. They only could put a temporary halt to all terroristic actions by returning to the negotiation table.

I would suggest that one of the reasons negotiations fail/have failed in the Middle East is that there is no central authority with whom to engage in binding negotiations.  

P.S: If you projected your "stronger-weaker" babble on races, you'd just sound like Hitler in "Mein Kampf".

I agree, to a point, but given that the Hitlerites "lost"  they were, in the long run, the weaker.

[ATI_7500]

"extensive use of chemical weapons"  such as "Agent Orange"?  which was a defoilant, with, tragically, harmful side effects.

I'm sure the US Army knew about those "unwanted side effects".

My Lai pales in comparison to Lidice (and a few other towns in France),...

No, My Lai is just as bad as every massacre of the SS.

I would suggest that one of the reasons negotiations fail/have failed in the Middle East is that there is no central authority with whom to engage in binding negotiations.

I've got to admit, that the US did a very good job unter the Clinton administration as some kind of "central authority". But sadly, after some changes in the government of all three states, peace seems to be a dream again.

I agree, to a point, but given that the Hitlerites "lost"  they were, in the long run, the weaker.

I was only talking about the idea, not the consequences.

[Felix/FFDS]

I'm sure the US Army knew about those "unwanted side effects".

Ahh yes, I forget - if it's bad, the "US" knows about it and willingly goes ahead ...

No, My Lai is just as bad as every massacre of the SS.

An incident, not government ordered, is as bad as a state-ordered mass execution?  My Word!  Who in the SS was even chastized for any village-mass executino (other than for not carrying it out)?

I've got to admit, that the US did a very good job unter the Clinton administration as some kind of "central authority". But sadly, after some changes in the government of all three states, peace seems to be a dream again.

In the US, at least there is a central authority willing to engage in reasonable conversations.  Whether a past administration was "successful" or not depends on many things, including whether negotions with one of the parties weas effectively binding on the party that was purportedly represented.

I was only talking about the idea, not the consequences.

On that, I agree with you.  " Might makes Right"  is not necessarily so, in the long run.

[ATI_7500]

An incident, not government ordered, is as bad as a state-ordered mass execution?  My Word!  Who in the SS was even chastized for any village-mass execution (other than for not carrying it out)?

In the SS, the orders came from above. If you didn't comply, you were dead, especially in the last year of the war.
The soldiers seeing red in My Lai didn't have such kind of orders and decided on their own to wipe out the village and its inhabitants.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]
An incident, not government ordered, is as bad as a state-ordered mass execution?

[Felix/FFDS]

The main difference is that My Lai occurred. not out of a predispositioned/trained government mandated policy of extermination, but as an action of a group of individuals.  THe ACTION itself is reprehensible, but to deduce from that that that (think about it, the triple that does apply here) was official military/government/national policy - and still is, well, let's carry it on.  Why complain?  It is then still the policy of Germany, England, etc., any and all countries who in the past have committed atrocities of one kind or another.  So there's no need to complain or whine about "mistreatments" etc., when that is the official policy of governments everywhere.

Back to the point I am trying to make.  In the Middle East troubles, there seems to be no single authority capable of sitting down for binding negotiations.  A deal is reached with one group, supposedly in the name of the people in an area, and another group pops up, repudiating the deal and starting up the violence again.

We can all not change the past excuse me, unless we are revisionist historians, seeing the past with today's morals, mores, customs and "progressive" ideas, than with seeing what actually happened and why, given the conditions of the time , but we can work towards the future.  There's no problem with dialog and negotiation, as long as the parties are willing to talk.  In the end, even North Vietnam and the US talked.

In negotiations, you have to make sure that the party you're talking TO has the authority to talk.

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]Back to the point I am trying to make.