argexpat
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- I was there, now I'm here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Jesus, the girl that was fleeing in the Vietnam pic was running for her life from the North - not the US. America was already gone when that picture was taken! Look at the picture, thats not even a US airplane.A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.
The photo is an accurate depiction of about 1/500th of a second of the immediate aftermath of an all-Vietnamese accident in an all-Vietnamese fight in June of 1972, and it was originally reported that way.
Newly manufactured details have changed the perception and altered the reported history of that tragedy.
The Canadian documentary crew and the heads of foundations that collect money for themselves created and continue a gross misrepresentation that quickly evolved into a "new memory" and new history of the event.
It is a fraud advanced for profit and continues to be published as late as December of 1998
This is a very famous photo and well documented event. Timberlake, who has since passed, seemed to think right or wrong that the North VC dropped the naplam and it was their plane. US military records did not back him up which is why the main stream press never ran with this story. 60 Minutes ran a piece on Timberlake and his claims in the mid 90's and pointed all this out. Other Vets who publicly stated Timberlake was full of it were attacked by Timberlake. Here's a web site concerning this:vauge said:How did I miss this earlier?
Jesus, the girl that was fleeing in the Vietnam pic was running for her life from the North - not the US. America was already gone when that picture was taken! Look at the picture, thats not even a US airplane.
Anyway, this is the type crap that Kerry helped to stir up with his congressional hearing. Now, no matter the facts - it is believed that little girl was running from the US and we became the bad guys.
Also, what on earth would they need napalm in Iraq for? Like there are any flippin trees.
Pacridge said:My research shows America is a nation and North America is in fact a continent.
Yeah, my wife doesn't think I'm funny either.argexpat said:While it's technically true that the continent of America is split into north and south, the term "American" has been pompously appropriated by citizens of the U.S. to refer only to them. The problem is that the United States of America doesn't really have a name, like Canada or Mexico. But Canadians are American. So are Mexicans and Brazilians and Guatamalens. We are all Americans. Thus my signature, "America is a continent." Just a reminder.
P.S. Latin Americans refer to us as Estdounidences; basically, "United States-ers," because to call us Americanos is absurd to them. I propose we come up with a name for the U.S. How about Arrogantistan or Ignorantia?
In some sense I agree with you. All's fair in love and war so to speak. However when it comes to this situation in the Middle East I think issues are far more complex than they were in WWII. Based on what you're saying we might as well nuke'em and build a parking lot out of the whole damn region. Which was Truman's basic approach in Japan. However in 1945 we were looking at launching a full scale invasion against a military and civilian population completely unwilling to surrender, even in the face of obvious defeat. Turning two of their cities into parking lots probably saved as many of their lives as ours. This isn't the case in Iraq. Most Iraqis are completely unhappy about us being there and want us to leave. But they are not attacking us. Plus in 45 we had the majority of world opinion on our side. Now I know you guys on the right like to take this "I don't give a crap what the rest of the world thinks" attitude. And I guess I'd be willing to sign off on that too if it didn't lead to people hating us and then flying aircraft into our buildings. So the parallels between WWII and now don't really play out well in this situation.CSA_TX said:The UN banned it the US didn't sign the agreement. Sounds to me like we have every right to use napalm or the new and improved Mark 77 firebombs. This is war and we should use all available weapons in are arsenal. It is amazing in WW2 we nuked hiroshima and nagasaki not because the were military targets but because it would make an impression. We carpet bombed German citys killing all in the path. We need to fight wars as a grandfathers did. Kicking maximum ass and cleaning up later. The PC crap isn't going to work in war. It never has and never will.
IronTongue said:First, a UK paper saying that there a "secret" usage of Napalm? Come on, the UK media HATES Bush with a passion.
Second, even if we did use it, we are using it against people that cut off hands, feet, and heads. A little machine gun fire and propaganda won't convince them to give up.
This is a very real possibility. Which is why I believe it is so important to work on world opinion and that of the Iraqi people. Napalming isn't going to help.argexpat said:And like Viet Nam, we’ll win every battle and lose the war.
In Vietnam we were fighting the ideology of communism just as much as we were fighting the North Veitnam nation. The whole idea was to stop the spread of communism.IronTongue said:Besides, in Vietnam we were fighting another nation; in Iraq, we're fighting an ideology. Most civilized human beings believe that terrorists are the bad guys. We don't have to deal with a country, or any allies that coutry has.
Yes it is awsome dude to see american firepower taking out barbarions that like to cut of civilians heads on TV.Maybe that’s the point, to win the war by brutalizing the civilians (a ghastly tactic CSA TX thinks is totally awesome, dude!) And, by the way, this is the text book definition of terrorism
CSA_TX said:The UN banned it the US didn't sign the agreement. Sounds to me like we have every right to use napalm or the new and improved Mark 77 firebombs. This is war and we should use all available weapons in are arsenal. It is amazing in WW2 we nuked hiroshima and nagasaki not because the were military targets but because it would make an impression. We carpet bombed German citys killing all in the path. We need to fight wars as a grandfathers did. Kicking maximum ass and cleaning up later. The PC crap isn't going to work in war. It never has and never will.
Even if Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, which it didn't. And even if invading them casued there to be more terrorist in Iraq then there were before, which it did. Then now it most certainly is part of the war on terror. It wouldn't have needed to be this way, but you can't unring a bell now can you? Which is why so many countries and so people advise against this whole mess. We could have stayed in Afghanistan and either finished or be finishing that job. But it's too late for all that thinking now. Now we're there. Now we got to do this and doing it is ugly work. Like it or not. And pulling out isn't an option either becasue the power vaccuum that would create would cause an even bigger mess then the one we've already created. We have to stay, finnish the job and support our troops.CSA_TX said:I do beleive the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Perhaps I am naive in this however it makes since to me that if we fight them in there backyard hopefully we will not fight them in ours. And if we fight the war PC style we will never win.
CSA_TX said:I never said we should nuke them. (I may think it however I never said it).
All I am saying is that if the UN or any other orginization wants to wank over how we wage war than they should be ignored. We never signed on to the treaty banning napalm. Had Sadam tried to gas our troops as they were headed to Bagdad then we should have nuked the place however he had already sent the chem weapons to syria at that point. So no reason to nuke.
To argexpat: you are right dude the more I think about the more I get some serious wood of all the killing being done by our sons and daughters of the US Armed Forces in the name of liberty. Totally awsome kickin some serious terrorist ass.
Huh, somebody I want to be President less then Bush. Didn't know that was possible.Mr.America said:I agree with you 100%. BTW If I was the president, I would destroy the UN and invade europe and restructure their government. I only wish this was possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?