Author: chiengolee

China lost war to Vietnam in 1979   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-2-25 17:50:12 |Display all floors
certainly ya should've gotten an Oscar for this
It takes about 40 muscles to smile, but only 4 to pull the trigger of a decent rifle

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-2-25 21:59:57 |Display all floors
zglobal Post time: 2013-2-24 19:34
America dropped 5 times all the bombs dropped by the allies in WW2 on little Vietnam.
I ...

those bomb is not atom...try atom and see~
few small bombs and not on target...and u expect viets to surrender? dude~ u ok?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-2-25 22:01:41 |Display all floors
saltandpepper Post time: 2013-2-25 06:08

US back then didn't have bunker busters.


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-2-25 22:03:59 |Display all floors
zglobal Post time: 2013-2-25 10:12
I said the U.S dropped 5 times more bombs on VN than the allies in WW2
Whatever weapons they had i ...

and they missed~
back then U.S. is NOT efficient in tracking people inside jungle~
no vision at all~ they cant bomb them to stone age~ that is why China and U.S. lost~ both NOT used to fight inside jungle and fighting farmers turn gunners from behind~

but NOW is different~
no matter how good u hide inside the jungle~ a single heat vision or nite vision sniper can wipe them out~

Use magic tools Report

Post time 2013-2-25 22:20:51 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked
Roach Exterminator

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-2-25 23:19:42 |Display all floors
zglobal Post time: 2013-2-25 22:20
A few small bombs and not on target.

You need to read some history books about what carpet bombin ...

i know what is carpet bombing~
but if the area that they bomb is not their bases....then whats the point?
5 bombs only got few soldiers...and u expect the whole battalions to surrender?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-2-26 01:59:20 |Display all floors
zglobal Post time: 2013-2-25 00:32
I think much of that is correct.

However, most opinion was that the Chinese invasion was due to V ...

>I think much of that is correct.

No one knows for sure what is or is not correct. Even the CIA denied any\all involvement... proding of course, if you are prepared to buy into the stories...

>However, most opinion was that the Chinese invasion was due to Vietnam freeing the Cambodians of Pol Pot.

You mean preprogrammed "mind sets" that sees, thinks, "and agrees as per what has been inputted into the motherboard"? There is a difference between what are the truth and what are "closed and zombied" frames of mind you know....  

>Border disputes were more a consequence of the invasion over subsequent years.

The infos you provide is just not specific enough. You have to name names here. I have to know who or what you are refering to. I.e., are you refering to disputes along the Vietnamese-Cambodian border? Or, are you refering to the dispute between China and Vietnam along the Chinese Vietnamese border?

>At the end of the day 8,000 young Chinese men died and never had a chance to live a happy life.

Again, the immediately above applies...

However, since you said 8000 young Chinese men died, I will have to assume that you are refering to the sino-Vietnamese war so here goes:

Whatever happened to the 40,000 plus imaginary number (casualties) that Hanoi and Moscow was perceived as having given a head counted as a real number that the Chinese were supposed to have sustained as a means of denying the Chinese the credit its due for the deep and lightning penetration it had accomplished into the Vietnamese side of the border which threatened to go all the way to the outskirts of Hanoi if armed provocations against China, which had been going on for quite some time, are guaranteed to come to a full stop to be sealed in ink?

The strangest thing here is this: everyone placed a lose win value on the sino-Vietnamese war. But, is there such a thing as win or lose? For example: Did the Americans won in the Vietnamese war, or was the Vietnamese the true victor? I don't know. To me, it's one of the most acute of six million dollar questions that comes without any clear or definite definitions. In other words, if you are of the Laughing's clique, you are sure to errect the biggest score board ever over it as if a game between the New York Jets verses the Baffalo Bills because these people, they feed on the machos they've been reared and brought up in and, of course, the excitments of it...  

As for me; and I don't know who else may fall in my sick and twisted group of groupies; the thing that I\we see is not winners or loser... The thing that I and those of my groupies see are the owners of the teams; the owners of the sports complex; the endorsers of these games (advertisers); the players themselves; and, the big bucks that are associated with these games -- people who does not see words win or lose in it that is, but rather, the words "interest and mission accomplished" as their overiding and all prioritizing end objective -- objectives that the Pacquiao and the Marquez can not escape...

In the modern day dictionary, "the arts of war," I do not see the verb "win (or lose)" in it... Instead, I do see the quote: "Mission accomplised printed in bold prints" all over it. I mean are there this "clear and visiblely finishing line as in a spinter's competition or a score boards as in Basketball game whereby we can use to distinguish and define what is or is not a winner, or a lose"? Of course not! But there are this quotation "mission accomplished" {:soso_e179:} witten all over it.  

That said: Did the Chinese win, or had the Vietnamese lost?

What are the truth here? My understanding of it is this: The estimated or the inflated number of Chinese casualties was a number the Hanoi-Moscow clique drum up to discret the Chinese for its lightning sucess deep into Vietnam (the onslaugth was a mere three weeks) territory -- a scenario that Hanoiu and Moscow had never imagined because they were betting on a shooting war restricted only to the shooting to and from each others borders and not that of a lightning penetration into the depth of Vietnam... The anomally -- face saving -- is thus a must and a demanded here...

The Americans of course jumpped instantly at the opportunity that Hanoi and Moscow had presented; took advantage of the situation; exploited it and painted the Moscow-Hanoi drum beat as facts so as to explain away the David verses Goliath face-losing sh*tting in their pants exit it had sealed for itself as part of America's proud, gallant, and glorious historical past...  

> None of the politicians that started the war lost theirs. That is what governments are about.

How would you know that for a fact? I mean I sure as the heck don't. Neither had Beijing divulged anything in that respect. This much I know however: there are stark contrasts: the legacies of 毛岸英 (For those who are fluent in Hanzi) verses that of the legacy of the Texas Air National Guard...

Putin's a killer. This was the claim made by Fox News journalist; Bill O'Reilly during his recent interview with Donald Trump. Trump's reply came in the form of a simple question. What, you think our country's so innocent?

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.