• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi Sunnis Trained by U.S. Return to al Qaeda

Let me answer your question with a question:

A grand master and a player of moderate skill sit down for a game of chess. The game ends in a stalemate -- the grand master with a king and two bishops and the other with just his king.

Who won?

That still doesn't explain how the United States military was defeated militarily, in Vietnam.

Still care to tackle that?
 
I'm saying that good things come to those who wait, which seems to be the main thrust of what repeter was saying.

IOW, you don't have the first goddamn clue?

You better be really careful. Redress don't like mother****ers who can't back their own bull****. She'll be in here on your ass!
 
IOW, you don't have the first goddamn clue?

Um, seeing as how I used the expression and then defined what I meant, I know exactly what I meant.

You better be really careful. Redress don't like mother****ers who can't back their own bull****. She'll be in here on your ass!

Why are you hiding behind her?
 
Um, seeing as how I used the expression and then defined what I meant, I know exactly what I meant.



Why are you hiding behind her?

Since you're so much smarter than the rest of us, how about you expalin how the United States military was defeated by the North Vietnamese Communists.

Or, are you going to continue to answer in riddles?
 
You're refusing to answer the question because you see my point.

It's no problem, because even if you played along and let me make my point, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. You refuse to admit defeat, even when you're wrong.
 
You're refusing to answer the question because you see my point.

It's no problem, because even if you played along and let me make my point, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. You refuse to admit defeat, even when you're wrong.

This deadlock isn't helping anyone, so let me answer who won the chess match for him. Obviously the amateur (insurgents) won, because the odds were heavily against him, and the master (the US) was a shoe-in to win, and could have done a hell of a lot better. Therefore, an amateur's draw against a master is a loss for the master, and a victory for the amateur.

But that is a rather simplistic comparison to make, and there are a lot of factors that it fails to contend with. Regardless, I have to say, I really liked it :D
 
That still doesn't explain how the United States military was defeated militarily, in Vietnam.

Still care to tackle that?

As in my other post, I'm trying to break this useless deadlock, so I'll answer for Tactical.

We lost Vietnam because we didn't have the political will to stay in the fight until the end, and Tactical would argue that we further failed to do as well as we should have, and could have, because of a lack of political will.

Of course, it can still be argued we got out because it wouldnt be worth starting a larger conflict with China, and perhaps cause the world to end.
 
This deadlock isn't helping anyone, so let me answer who won the chess match for him. Obviously the amateur (insurgents) won, because the odds were heavily against him, and the master (the US) was a shoe-in to win, and could have done a hell of a lot better. Therefore, an amateur's draw against a master is a loss for the master, and a victory for the amateur.

But that is a rather simplistic comparison to make, and there are a lot of factors that it fails to contend with. Regardless, I have to say, I really liked it :D

As in my other post, I'm trying to break this useless deadlock, so I'll answer for Tactical.

We lost Vietnam because we didn't have the political will to stay in the fight until the end, and Tactical would argue that we further failed to do as well as we should have, and could have, because of a lack of political will.

Of course, it can still be argued we got out because it wouldnt be worth starting a larger conflict with China, and perhaps cause the world to end.

Smart as well as practical.

I like you. :D
 
This deadlock isn't helping anyone, so let me answer who won the chess match for him. Obviously the amateur (insurgents) won, because the odds were heavily against him, and the master (the US) was a shoe-in to win, and could have done a hell of a lot better. Therefore, an amateur's draw against a master is a loss for the master, and a victory for the amateur.

But that is a rather simplistic comparison to make, and there are a lot of factors that it fails to contend with. Regardless, I have to say, I really liked it :D

But, we weren't fighting Boris Spassky. We're fighting a war. Chess and warfare are nothing alike.

Basically, TED's argument is bull****.

If I'm a player in a chess game, against a superior opponent and at, "check mate", I sweep the pieces from the board with my arm, who is the winner?

From a tactical point of view, I would be the winner, as there are no more chess pieces to continue the game with.

Nice job trying to cover for TED, but you know as well as I do, that he is wrong as hell.
 
You're refusing to answer the question because you see my point.

It's no problem, because even if you played along and let me make my point, you'd just dismiss it out of hand. You refuse to admit defeat, even when you're wrong.

Ok, make your point...without riddles, that is.
 
Ok, make your point...without riddles, that is.

That wasn't a riddle, that was a comparison. It's only a riddle if you don't get it.

At any rate, we rounded up one of the best military forces on the planet, invaded, and then we left the battlefield because we lost the will to fight.

There's absolutely no way you could possibly paint the United States the victor, for the same reason the grand master lost the draw.
 
That wasn't a riddle, that was a comparison. It's only a riddle if you don't get it.

At any rate, we rounded up one of the best military forces on the planet, invaded, and then we left the battlefield because we lost the will to fight.

There's absolutely no way you could possibly paint the United States the victor, for the same reason the grand master lost the draw.

We left the battlefield, because the it wasn't politically expedient for the politicians.

Our military wasn't defeated on the battlefield, nor did our troops lose their will to make war upon the enemy.
 
We left the battlefield, because the it wasn't politically expedient for the politicians.

Our military wasn't defeated on the battlefield, nor did our troops lose their will to make war upon the enemy.

War is more than the battlefield. You should not get involved in any conflict in which the will is not sufficient to stay the long hall. Democracies seldom want to be invloved in needless conflicts for long. So at some point you have to acknowldge this and plan accordingly. Failure to do so leads to inadequate results.
 
Back
Top Bottom