But actually what I said wasn't condescending or offensive, I just had a feeling it would be taken that way, so to avoid changing the topic I was going to edit one small irrelevant comment out, not the entire post as you felt was needed.

Calling the Vietnamese "armed combatants" is an idiotic comment for anyone to make, that's nothing personal. Anyone with a gun can be considered an "armed combatant". The majority of American citizens can be considered "armed combatants" for simply owning a gun. The Vietnam war was an ideological war against communism, it wasn't a war against a threatening country. Russia was our threat, not Vietnam, but our politicians didn't have the balls to go to war with Russia, so instead we go to war with one of their piss poor allies in an attempt to fight against the communism ideology. I should also point out that much of the weaponry came from Russia, so Russia was essentially arming and feeding a poor country that didn't know any better. Demonizing the Vietnamese is a pathetic way of justifying our actions against a country caught in the middle of two highly militarized nations.

Obviously that war failed, and a lot of innocent Vietnamese died because of it. Ideological wars can never succeed, our war against communism ended with the self implosion of Russia, but communism still exists today and we have managed to live at peace with these differences in ideologies. The same is going on with terrorism, the war on terror is another ideological war. Just like communism, terrorism is not something that can be won militarily. No matter how evil we try to paint our enemies, this war will never end because of our military might. That only emboldens our enemy and makes them stronger and more united against us.

The very word terrorist is a loosely used word tossed around like we tossed around the word communist, it's another modern day witch hunt. Anybody can be labeled as a terrorist, or a sponsor of terror. These loosely defined words are used as justifications for the horrors we commit against non-threatening people in the world. So as I pointed out with my McCain example, ANYBODY can be considered a terrorist, even someone who obviously loves his country and would never want to intentionally cause harm to his countrymen. So making any connections to Obama and terrorism is completely ridiculous and idiotic, just as my connection of McCain to being a terrorist was idiotic had I been serious.

If you disagree, then I'd love to hear you explain how Obama can be compared to the same mentality that caused a group of alienated people to fly commercial jets into buildings full of innocent people. If you honestly believe any presidential candidate, such as Barack Obama, can in anyway sympathize with people like that, then I'd love to hear your explanation of how those two mentalities have any connection at all. Or will you do as you normally do, and just remove my posts when you can't argue against it?