>>46
"Haha, I remember the U.S surrendering to Vietnam. And they have the tenacity to call the French cowards."
That is hardly a comparitive argument. For starters We were fighting in Vietnam, Not the United States. If the US were getting invaded and We surrendered with little fight. fine OK. Vietnam was a war that was mismanaged by our side, just like WWII was with the french, fine. We didn't actually surrendered, because surrendering means you say to the other pary of a war "i's over, we are beat into submission, our nation is open to you". We simply pulled our support from South Vietnam, which really wasn't that great of a nation anyways. Also it is directly opposing our foreign policy at the time in the fact that we weren't supposed to put 0ur troops into places like that, we were simply supposed to be arming the natives of that area. Kennedy got us in there and changed it causing the problem, Johnson saw it escaltae, Nixon didn't really see a way to get out at first, and ran again on the platform of getting us out in six months. And he actually did it. This is in the same way that if Kerry were elected in 2004 and pulled us out of iraq, we wouldn't be surrendering to iraq, we would simply be pulling our support from the govenment we placed there. Not surrendering and opening our nation to Iraq the way france did to germany.
>>48
The French army failed in those first months. The french preserved and acted bravely for their nation afterwards. French lost more lives in the against germany. If anyone bought the the defeat of germany in blood it was the Russians. This is because Stalin used traditional Russian tactics of war of simply sending so many human meatwalls towards the enemy that they eventually run out of bullets, and are overwealmed.
>>47
WE DIDN'T give it a god try. the war was mismanaged and we told are troops to hold the line against an enemy that didn't use lines. We changed our methods lightly to compensate, but overall we failed to really try to win the war, and focused on holding north Vietnam off. We could have simply taken out Ho Chi Min and put into place a new govenment and it would have turned out better. We tried it again in Korea, but it was different as we had more extensive treaties with korea regarding their protection. And lets not kid ourselves. The Korean war was Really the China-American war.
>>38
Yes the Jews had it THOUSANDS of years before. There was not a generation of jews that remembered the generation of jews that held Isreal. Next yes it was british land to begin with and thier gift to the jews, and the land was still partly from palastine and partly from Jordan. Yes, They were all nomadic desert people, however that land wasn't, being near water and having good resorces it could be constanly maintained. Also look at it like this: They looked at the sprawling dessert of the middle east and gave one of the largest oasises around to someone not from there. There is obviously a little argument from that.
There is a generation of palistinians that remember having posession of isreal. that remember living in THEIR city. that remember the history of them controling it for a thousand years previously. The Jews lost it to history in a war with the Palistinians. The palisinians lost it to someone not from that but from it simply being given to someone else. They were ruled fairly loosly by the british, they did not expect to wake up one moring and read in the newpaper "your nation now belongs to the jews, it is time for you to move". I mean really would you put up with that shit?