... Attempts to conquer the world occured throughout history. Rome, China (founding emperor especially), Alexander the great, Ghengis khan, and many more. In the past this was impossible due to several reasons:

1. Lack of fast communication: Instead of near instant radio signals communication relied on runners.

2. Lack of fast transport: armies took too long to reach places. We didn't have airplanes and cars, 

3. Lack of modern medicine (first emperor of china died because his alchemists fed him mercury to make him immortal. Alexander the great died of minor infection, etc).

As for USA's opportunities:

1. The USA was the first country to develop nuclear weapons, it could have levered it easily to achieve total world dominance.

2. The USA was for a long period the only superpower in the world, it could have conquered with impunity.

3. The USA has developed a variety of weapons that far outclass any other contemporary weapons for a period of several years.

The army does what its told:

1. Where are you going with that? I mean, is this a reply to something I said?

Vientnam:

1. In the vietnam war the united states lost 58,220 soldiers... the vast majority of those in the first 2 years. The first year the US lost 35k soldiers, by the 4th year it was under 1k soldiers a year dead. The USA was winning, significantly so, and has managed to halt communist aggression for which the world should be thankful.

The united states won the war on the third year. Liberal anti american propaganda by the US media outlets convinced the USA that it has lost with made up statistics such as "the average survival time of a soldier dropped into Vietnam is under 60 seconds" and other such nonsense. The USA was firmly in control... It was the USA leaving (far too early) that allowed communist resurgence and lost he war.

My goodness ... people believed that stuff, go figure. 60 seconds ... come on now. Are you talking about people below the age of three or what, hahaha...? So the US was winning, well how did all that turn out?

I believe we went into Afghanistan to help finance a battle against the communist scourge to the north. I think China has been in the news of late. What communist aggression are you referring to? Remember the ‘Killing Fields’ in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge came into power between 1975 and 1979 … the year we left Vietnam, humm. Our bombing across the borders led to the takeover by the Khmer Rouge regime where 20,000 mass grave sites indicate at least 1,386,734 victims. Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million. In 1979, communist Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea and toppled the Khmer Rouge regime. We were key in setting them up in power, bummer that.

We left Vietnam too early … no wonder you appreciate our overlong stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. We couldn’t pull off an illegal war back then in 20 years and we cannot do it today in 10 … with our entire superior stuff and all. Are you trying to tell me we have been just been improving the Iraqi or Afghanistan lifestyles and forming good relations for the past 5 years? I think we are just too invested into raping the country and the American taxpayers and cannot get out. Then considering where we still have to stretch our dominant influence, we had better stay there, go figure.

The Army does what it is told, period. Just a statement of fact … is there somewhere you want to take it? You mean like physically take over the world, what planet are you from, hahaha. But we did use our nukes and just as you said it worked just fine … for a start, imagine that.

For people who failed to conquer the world, they sure gobbled up most of it and you missed several. Those masters did not need our ‘stuff’ to do what they did and we do not need to use our stuff to copy their model, just a thought.

the 60 seconds figure comes from my college US history

Unless you are insane, you do not go around randomly stating "facts" that are not in any way related to anything at all you are discussing.

If I were to state "the capital of france is paris" in the middle of our current discussion without any context or point to it you would think me insane.

I am asking what the heck are you actually tryng to SAY here.

1. The video is completely unrelated to any point you made.

2. You didn't actually make any point beyond "our stuff is not needed to conquer the world" (our stuff presumably being the 3 things I said are needed. Fast communication, transportation, and medicine). You don't actually back up your claim, you simply state "they didn't need it" without explaining why it isn't needed or why empires in their golden conquering years stopped expanding. I would like to point out that rome had to split in too because limits of communication and transportation made it necessary in order for it to be governed at all.

3. Your syntax is all over the place and mostly you are just saying nonsense... nonsense as in random words with no coherent meaning. I am not saying you are wrong or right in this statement, I mean I literally its nonsense... i mean, what "masters"

I don't care where you got the 60 second sound bite, but only an idiot could believe such nonsense as for those who bring this crap as some valid argument are ... whatever. You touted the fact that American deaths were continuously diminishing so WTF, you can’t have it both ways. Many things do not require an explanation like the above ... but it must be true because your book said so.
 
“The army does what it is told.” What in the world are you questioning here silly. Or are you trying to say the army doesn’t do what it is told? Obviously you are militarily biased but who cares. I joined the military in 1970 (age 18) to support the war efforts but never made it to Vietnam. I got out in 1979.

You brought up the subject of historical empirical conquests not me.You stated that world conquest could not be accomplished because of a lack of modern technical advantages and I pointed out that they in fact did conquer much of the known world at the times without them. I pointed out that Hitler had the modern communications and other things you listed but he failed to conquer the world because he tried the old fashion way … brute military force and failed. I do not understand how I can make this call any simpler for you?

You stated that we halted communist aggression for which we are supposed to be proud of and I pointed out a couple of instances where communism still flourishes unchecked, go figure. Do you really need more examples? I stated that there was a large American body bag count and you stated that we lost 58,220 (58,212 by my count) soldiers … what was my error? I said the war was unjust and you ignored that. We left and the communists won … but if you want to considered this a victory of some kind, more power to you. Maybe this will help. When I say army, I am talking about all our military forces and am not trying to pick out one branch or another … seems I have you to do that for me. The vast majority of those killed were in the first 2 years I think not!

Country Year of Death Number Killed
USA
 
         1956–1964               401
         1965                     1,863
         1966                     6,143
         1967                   11,153
         1968                   16,592
         1969                   11,616
         1970                     6,081
         1971                     2,357
         1972                        641
         1973                        168
         1974–1998             1178

                         Total     58193, humm I missed a few.

As for the debt ceiling, I think we are doomed. There will be an increase and it will be business as usual ... as usual. Do you believe the teleprompter will allow Obama to refuse to raise the ceiling? Read my lips … again and again, hahaha

You fail at reading, try again. I explained clearly that only a moron will buy the 60 second expectancy bullshit.

I pointed out I "learned" it in US history in college not as an argument for its validity, but as a jibe at how stupid prevalent this kind of crap is.

I am questioning your sanity and your reading comprehension. The statement "the army does what it is told" is completely unrelated to anything discussed here and I am asking why you are making it.

"much" of the "known world" is bullshit. They would have conquered ALL of earth if they had modern technology.

... hitler lost, yes. But if things went a little differently he COULD very well have conquered the whole world.

So? halting their advances once does not completely eliminate all its instances around the world. That would be as stupid as saying "you said WW2 stopped a genocidal maniac but there are still genocidal maniacs today in existance". No kidding there are.

I didn't ignore it, I said the war was NOT unjust because it had a just cause, stopping communist aggressive expansion.

Which is a bad thing, yes. The united states failed to achieve its goals, it snached defeat from the jaws of victory. First it secured its victory, then it pointlessly withdrew and let the enemy recover and achieve their goals.

Let's try this to start. I have never said there was anything wrong with our troops especially the boots on the ground. I have never said they were anything but honorable and I hold them in high esteem ... so knock the military chip off please. They do what they are told … ring a bell!!!

You sited some statistics that I did not agree with so I posted a chart indicating the start and ending of the war and the numbers of deaths and when …??? I seem to have taken you more literally than you meant. If you thought the 60 second bit was unimportant, why was it the only liberal propaganda bite you mentioned? I understand logic but I cannot read minds.  You have to understand the correlation between the “known world” way back when and the “whole world” of today, only a child might not. I do not know how to go back in history hypothetically … it is what it is. This is ‘the what if game’ we played as children. Are you going to give modern marvels to just one side or what? Well what if this or how about that … this is just a game. Your last word on Hitler was “But if things went a little differently he COULD …” Is it that difficult to use accurate data and actual historical information to tell the truth?

“Advisors” started arriving in 1950. The Vietnam War started on 1 November 1955 and U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965 but … US troops were there from the early 60’s tripling in 1961 and again in 1962. (I am sure I do not know the differences between US troops and combat units, but that is what it said.) U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973. The War ended with the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. Accurate to a day, probably not … but accurate enough.

please do not mesh two completely unrelated arguments into a single sentence, it makes your spiel difficult to follow.

Seriously what the hell are you trying to say with this and why do you insist on making such a statement? what is your POINT in making such a statement. If I said "tomatoes are red" in the middle of this discussion you would question why I am making random statements unrelated to the issue as well. I don't have a "chip on my shoulder", I am merely giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't batshit crazy and actually are trying to make a point of some sort that I am failing to undertand.

You are right, human memory is fallable and the exact death's by year I quoted was wrong; I probably mixed it up with the sum of the 3 toughest years, and understated it somewhat as its actually closer to 40k. That being said look at your own chart, at its worst it was over 16k a year dead. But look at the last 2 years of the war in your own chart:

 1972                        641

 1973                        168

and it ended in august of 73.

Now, the USA loses shrunk to a fraction of their previous amounts, it effectively won 2 years before it decided to retreat and managed to snatch a loss out of an assured victory.

It isn't unimportant, its false. there is a difference. Its also one of the many false statements that liberal media made to make it look like there were countless american casualties in the war. Its importance is in that it is still believed in today, years after the fact.

The notion that we are losing countless soldiers in vietnam is what caused the american public to sour on it and call for a retreat which lead to failure to accomplish objectives.

You have to understand that ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues at hand only degrades your position on a subject.

I AM using accurate historical data to tell the truth. Accurate historical data is reason he COULD and the people a thousand years before him COULD NOT. Just because he DIDN'T doesn't mean he COULDN'T. The ones before him actually couldn't.

And what facts and figures are you touting here, hahaha.

Was it the start of the war whenever that was or was it the American victory 3 years later? Maybe it was the vast majority of American deaths that took place in the first two years whenever that was or the 35,000 killed in the first year. Or was it the part about how we "effectively won" 2 years before we withdrew whenever that was. And now you are trying to use my facts to justify your rambling is just amazing is all.

I find it difficult to believe you are studying anything about history. Most people I know like history for many different reasons ... but reinventing it is just not one of them. Why, if someone were like this, they might even review an old Sci-Fi classic film as a modern day political documentary, go figure. It’s been a while since I heard such trivial pursuits.

Yea well, if you give your barbarians modern weapons, I will send my little green men back and … hahaha.

the facts I am touting are the ones from your own chart:

         1965                     1,863
         1966                     6,143
         1967                   11,153
         1968                   16,592
         1969                   11,616
         1970                     6,081
         1971                     2,357
         1972                        641
         1973                        168

I admitted that I did not correctly recall the exact figures off the top of my head, I'd like to see you do better.

But I did recall the correct conclusion, it is the conclusion I have arrived after seeing the above figures. it was near 40k dead on the worst 3 years of the war (67-69) not the FIRST three, fine, whatever. Point is that at the least 2 years the deathtoll was practically nothing. On the last year its about 1/100th the deathtoll of the worst year. As I said, the USA effectively won and then decided to withdraw after winning for no reason other then hostile propaganda convincing us that we having mountains of body-bags coming home.

@Rest of post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule with the smiley faces to back it. How droll.

Why should I want to do better ... I supplied the facts??? I did not rely on my head go figure??? Look, I do not understand why you are acting this way. For the most part we agree but I do not understand your objections. Somehow the first two years has turned into the worst 3 years ... why the nonsense. Ok, I give up! Have it your way I don't care. I just want to discuss the truth and not the bigotry. I am sure there plenty of people on JU who will thrill in fictions ... but not me. Plenty of body bags however you want to look at it. Propaganda is just slang for opposition views and there were plenty on all sides. Why is it always the other guys ... amazing but true?

Seemingly you have no sense of humor when you are backpedaling to try and save grace, not to worry, it happens to all of us. Want some advice ... chill out a bit... Look, no confusing avatars...