+Dave 2,318 Posted August 24, 2010 http://en.wikipedia....s_of_engagement While I hate wikipedia for information, I thought this was great. I did some independent research on this years ago and still have no notes somewhere. I always thought he didnt do anything wrong and finally justice is served. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 24, 2010 Another military officer sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and vivisected by the media based on partial and incorrect facts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted August 24, 2010 Flaming politicians and the media that rules them... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sokol 443 Posted August 24, 2010 hmmm, no intention to start a flame war, but ... sure, Lavalle was a sort of scapegoat, Nixon, Laird & co. are to blame. anyway: the (north-)vietnamese were defending their country, their independance and their freedom (as did the U.S. in it's own war of independence / revolution. so by any standard all of their actions were defensive by definition, whatever the methods of their defence were - radar, SAM, MiGs ... the U.S. was the aggressor (as were the French, Japanese, British). like it or not. once in a while this should be remembered. sokol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted August 24, 2010 hmmm, no intention to start a flame war, but ... sure, Lavalle was a sort of scapegoat, Nixon, Laird & co. are to blame. anyway: the (north-)vietnamese were defending their country, their independance and their freedom (as did the U.S. in it's own war of independence / revolution. so by any standard all of their actions were defensive by definition, whatever the methods of their defence were - radar, SAM, MiGs ... the U.S. was the aggressor (as were the French, Japanese, British). like it or not. once in a while this should be remembered. sokol Good point. I had a conversation the other day with a friend, about the difference between a Freedom Fighter and a Terrorist (slightly off topic perhaps)...but although it was stated that the only difference was whose side you were on..it's more than that...and the boundaries are blurred. Soldiers have a job to do..and that is, whatever their government tell them to do..same as it ever was. I too want to steer away from Politics, but most people agree that Nixon was a nob-end Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,318 Posted August 24, 2010 hmmm, no intention to start a flame war, but ... sure, Lavalle was a sort of scapegoat, Nixon, Laird & co. are to blame. anyway: the (north-)vietnamese were defending their country, their independance and their freedom (as did the U.S. in it's own war of independence / revolution. so by any standard all of their actions were defensive by definition, whatever the methods of their defence were - radar, SAM, MiGs ... the U.S. was the aggressor (as were the French, Japanese, British). like it or not. once in a while this should be remembered. sokol Not the debate here.....has nothing to do with who started what , where. That is a subject for another debate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sokol 443 Posted August 25, 2010 agree :-) true enough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
