Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#94 to #76 - anonymous (12/18/2012) [-]
******** . 28,000 dead Americans in Vietnam, 4.8 Million dead Vietnamese - Most of whom were Civilians.

The individuals depicted in your picture have (by statistics) comitted a mass-genocide.
They're mass-murderers, and you hold them in such high regard? Feel a little for the Vietnamese who got showered with white phosphorus, or the millions upon millions of Vietnamese who got killed simply because they were Vietnamese.
User avatar #100 to #94 - akkere ONLINE (12/18/2012) [-]
Too bad most of the Vietnam Soldiers were drafted, and a large portion of those that were civillian deaths were from the higher ups approving of Agent Orange and Operation Ranch Hand, operations that also caught our own soldiers in the haze and crippled them or gave them cancer that would kill them off, but they don't put that in the statistics.
Any other comments to make you feel edgier, anon?
#103 to #100 - anonymous (12/18/2012) [-]
28,000 names of Americans.

4,8 Million dead Vietnamese.

The numbers don't change. Most of the Vietnamese didn't even have weapons to defend themselves with. American Soldiers were paid and promoted for confirmed kills. The ones they killed didn't have to be armed to be added to the kill-ratio of the Soldiers.

It's still 28,000 dead American Soldiers compared to 4.8 Million dead Vietnamese.
User avatar #104 to #103 - akkere ONLINE (12/18/2012) [-]
>paid and promoted for confirmed kills

And here we have someone who thinks Call of Duty applies to real life, everyone.
#105 to #104 - anonymous (12/18/2012) [-]
Read up on the Vietnamese War.

Or better yet - I can link to you a documentary which revolves around Vietnam, if you wish to learn.
User avatar #106 to #105 - akkere ONLINE (12/18/2012) [-]
Don't bother, because your numbers right off the bat are all wrong.

The Vietnamese Government in 1995 themselves claimed that only over 2,000,000 civilians had died, which was a statistic brought on 20 years after the war, so it's pretty clear calculated.
www.nytimes.com/1995/04/23/world/20-years-after-victory-vietnamese-commun ists-ponder-how-to-celebrate.html

American Soldiers Deaths were over 58,000
You need to login to view this link

... with an additional 300,000 being wounded, half of which were heavily hospitalized, most of which were usually crippled.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm

....Which again, a hefty portion of them were drafted and didn't even want to be in the war.
#107 to #106 - anonymous (12/19/2012) [-]
"Brought on 20 years after the war".
Oh, yes. Because corpses have this lovely little ability to stay in the exact same state as they where when they die. That's why we see so many dead bodi-- OH WAIT!
You honestly think that - after 20 years of waiting - calculating the number of casualities will just be a fine and dandy little process that will bring out the exact number of slain individuals?

Furthermore; We're talking casualities here. Not people who were just injured.

Thirdly; Even if we suppose that your numbers are all correct, there's still that little moral ambiguity that - for every American soldier who died, that Soldier would have brought with him almost 40 innocent civilians.

Lastly - At least the Soldiers sent out to Vietnam were given weapons to use. What do you think most of the Vietnamese had to defend the homes in which they had lived their entire lifes?
User avatar #108 to #107 - akkere ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Christ, you really are a numb skull aren't you?

No, you fool, 20 years is enough time to cross reference the corpses found after a long period of time during the war and after the war, against the records of the citizens and known inhabitants. They didn't just wait and go "hur hur, it's 20 years now, let's go count up the corpses", this is a report that's the result of numerous calculations and information checking for 20 years.

Your assuming my numbers are less legit than your "a soldier would easily have killed 40 innocents before they died" and not even posting a source to back it up like I have mine.
Or is it all from this documentary of yours that's so reliable that it has its numbers all skewed, most likely to say "da soldiers in vietnam were all baaaaaad" like you've been coming off as this whole discussion?

There's no doubt there was definitely a lot of unneeded civilian casualty, especially from command of the higher ups, but to assume every armed force was a mass murderer? Give me a ******* break.
#109 to #108 - anonymous (12/19/2012) [-]
Ad hominem - I love it, and apparently; So do you.
Perhaps you should read what I write (all for you), and not just what you think I write.
There seems to be a very large difference between the aformentioned.

Furthermore - Do you know what Vietnam used to be? A forest. A very. Very. Very densely populated forest. And in this forest lived people! And these people didn't have a very advanced kind of society. Actually - most of them didn't have access to hospitals where they could register their newborns! And we're not talking about 20-30,000 people here. We're talking several millions.

Perhaps if you would read what I said, you would realize that for every dead American soldier were aproximately 40 dead Innocents.
Trying to reduce my arguments to silly banter might work better with those whom you are more used to arguing with (Most likely children up to ages 8), but it's not going to make you right, and it's certainly not going to disprove me.

Oh, and one more thing - "Numbskull" isn't written in two parts, and it's a title, so you type it with a capital letter.
User avatar #110 to #109 - akkere ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Evidently, you don't read what you write.

>t-t-they're all mass murderers
"They're mass-murderers, and you hold them in such high regard?"
>for every soldier that died they killed 40
"that Soldier would have brought with him almost 40 innocent civilians."
>DUR THE REPORT IS CLEARLY INACCURATE BECAUSE CORPSES DONT STAY AFTER 20 YEARS
" Because corpses have this lovely little ability to stay in the exact same state as they where when they die."

Yes I know what ******* Vietnam used to be, hence me bringing up Agent Orange and Operation Ranch Hand, you on the other hand don't seem to know these operations, mr. documetary, as you keep blaming the deaths on the soldiers alone, as the context of your own writings stipulate.

Yeah, I did read what you wrote, "Numbskull", several times in fact.

You on the other hand, don't.

So get off your high chair and actually bring a valid response, instead of hopping around the statements like some Native Rain Dancer.
#112 to #110 - anonymous (12/19/2012) [-]
That's very interesting, Dear Sir.
Please continue, the spectacle of your intelligence skyrocketing is simply an event unlikened by any other.

Perhaps you should work for Fox News, with all the information that you intentionally misinterprit in order to make yourself look legit.
User avatar #114 to #112 - akkere ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
Not a misprint.

"The individuals depicted in your picture have (by statistics) comitted a mass-genocide.
They're mass-murderers, and you hold them in such high regard? Feel a little for the Vietnamese who got showered with white phosphorus, or the millions upon millions of Vietnamese who got killed simply because they were Vietnamese."
Full statement; still carries same meaning. You implying the soldiers as mass murderers when most of them weren't even directly behind the white phosphorous; it only takes a group of people to handle those things.

"Thirdly; Even if we suppose that your numbers are all correct, there's still that little moral ambiguity that - for every American soldier who died, that Soldier would have brought with him almost 40 innocent civilians."

Full statement, once again; you implying the soldier would be the one responsible for the ratio'd deaths, which again, would be false for former reasons.

"Oh, yes. Because corpses have this lovely little ability to stay in the exact same state as they where when they die. That's why we see so many dead bodi-- OH WAIT!
You honestly think that - after 20 years of waiting - calculating the number of casualities will just be a fine and dandy little process that will bring out the exact number of slain individuals?"

I wouldn't even have a problem with this misinterpretation if you didn't have the mocking tone to it, but this is just pure arrogance.
You thinking a report made 20 years later means that they counted up the body, which is absolutely against any form of investigative common sense, and not a tally from numerous reports and factorials.

Once again; stop dancing around the statements like a rain dancer and bring a valid response.
#116 to #114 - anonymous (12/19/2012) [-]
See, I'd love to give you a reply - but when I discuss things with people like you, valid responses are usually met with insults and silly banter.

So, here's my reply - 58k - 4.8 Million.

Also, I'd love to stay and elaborate, but I want to have a **** , and then I'm going to sleep, and dream about this discussion.
Feel free to reply, anyway.
You'll have a reply in about 18 hours. Good night!
User avatar #117 to #116 - akkere ONLINE (12/19/2012) [-]
>"You'll just make insults and silly banter"

>First comment generalizes Vietnam Soldiers as mass murderers, regardless of the fact that most of the killings were the result of operations proceeded of higherups, or that most soldiers didn't even want to be there in the first place.

Not for nothing, but with the cocky tone you have, something tells me no one ever wants to discuss anything with you.
#120 to #117 - anonymous (12/19/2012) [-]
Ad hominem - You still appear to be enjoying the use of it.

Generalization and insults are two different things - Generalizations at least hold some truth to them, whereas insults in most cases do not.

My "Cocky tone" is one that I didn't even know I had. I'm keeping this rather clean, and although I'm mocking you for simply being wrong, I do not think that I'm doing as such in a "Cocky" manner.
Furthermore - The fact that you keep replying makes it evident that you're more than willing to keep discussing this with me, making your point a lot less effective.
User avatar #123 to #120 - akkere ONLINE (12/20/2012) [-]
Once again he dances around the statements crying "UR INSULTING ME" and "UR THE ONE WHO DOESNT WANT TO DISCUSS".
#124 to #123 - anonymous (12/20/2012) [-]
Once again, the Fox Newsman intentionally misinterprits information and lies!
What a surprise!
Perhaps I should start writing a journal about this discussion. I know that it'll be far more interesting than reading your replies.

"Dear journal, today Akkere misinterprited everything that I said. I think that he should become a Politician."
User avatar #130 to #124 - akkere ONLINE (12/28/2012) [-]
>still going back to reading this

You have a problem, maestro.
#131 to #130 - anonymous (12/28/2012) [-]
>So ridiculously pissed off that you thumb my comments down, despite the fact that it doesn't actually do anything.

>Also still going back to reading this.

It's Maestro. With a capital M.
User avatar #134 to #131 - akkere ONLINE (12/28/2012) [-]
u wot m8
#80 to #76 - ninjabadger (12/18/2012) [-]
Never forget.
-3
#79 to #76 - TodayIAmMe has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)