Ruh Row, Korean Conflict Brewing (4 Viewers)

[X Æ A-12]

Actually throughout the conflict a "silent majority" of American citizens were in support of the Vietnam war.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[JBF]

No, Vietnam was a very political war. The soldiers didn't want to be there and the American people didn't want to be there.

Yea, that's because Vietnamese kicked their ass.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Yea, that's because Vietnamese kicked their ass.

I think there were ass kickings on both sides of the war.

 

[IrishZebra]

Yea, that's because Vietnamese kicked their ass.

Militarily the US were making the Vietcong and Vietminh their bitches, but as in support of my earlier point America lost a lot more by going into the war logistically and internationally just like Iraq and Afghanistan except this time theirs a nation waiting to'leapfrog' them.

 

[JBF]

I think there were ass kickings on both sides of the war.

No doubt but you can't underrate the brave and brutal resistance the Vietnamese gave their all for and simply call that war a political one.

 

[JBF]

Militarily the US were making the Vietcong and Vietminh their bitches, but as in support of my earlier point America lost a lot more by going into the war logistically and internationally just like Iraq and Afghanistan except this time theirs a nation waiting to'leapfrog' them.

Ofcourse on the ground the U.S had the bigger advantage, they were one of the two most powerful nations in the world at that time. But at night, they were given nightmare from the Asians. You can't honestly believe the U.S backed down from that war simply because the public lost interest.

 

[X Æ A-12]

No doubt but you can't underrate the brave and brutal resistance the Vietnamese gave their all for and simply call that war a political one.

Yes. sending wave after wave of expendable gook villagers into the firing lines of blazing m60s, so brave so brave...

I think the russians had a similar strategy in WW2.

 

[AlexDelPiero10]

I think there were ass kickings on both sides of the war.

Not really, Burke. Given the odds at the beginning of the damn thing, the US went down big time. I'd consider it a defeat.

You're very right about it being a political war though.

 

[AlexDelPiero10]

Yes. sending wave after wave of expendable gook villagers into the firing lines of blazing m60s, so brave so brave...

I think the russians had a similar strategy in WW2.

It's the only option. Besides surrender that is, but I don't think you'd consider that brave.

I don't like to talk about "brave" in a war anyway. Maybe one was brave in the Middle Ages, but that's not what it's like right now.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Not really, Burke. Given the odds at the beginning of the damn thing, the US went down big time. I'd consider it a defeat.

You're very right about it being a political war though.

I never said it wasn't a defeat, it's obvious we lost. I was just stating that we won some, and they won some.

 

[IrishZebra]

The only people that benefit from war are Arms dealers and Undertakers

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Wrong, the whole world benefits because it's better to have less people on the planet. We're overpopulated as it is, the less people the better, realistically.

 

[Enron]

Militarily the US were making the Vietcong and Vietminh their bitches, but as in support of my earlier point America lost a lot more by going into the war logistically and internationally just like Iraq and Afghanistan except this time theirs a nation waiting to'leapfrog' them.

We also sponsored dictators such as Diem to lead the south who were violent sociopaths that loved killing buddhists. In addition, our officers were inexperienced and the Geneva convention went out the window. So between always sporting Vietdong deuce-bags and committing atrocities we weren't going to win the hearts and minds of anyone.

The US brass made a shit load of bad decisions, from the minimalist attitude for taking hills and bunkers in the mountains to assuming that the Vietnamese wouldn't fight during Tet. Add to that an increasingly volatile movement of change back home and it wasn't much of a recipe for victory.

When you look at the total numbers the US military killed many more Vietnamese than they lost soldiers, destroyed the majority of the infrastructure in the North as well as in Cambodia and Laos, and manage to kill off hundreds of thousands of hectares of jungle and farmland. On paper it would look like a victory, except for one important thing. The Vietnamese never surrendered. So we just said "fuck it".

I respect the vietnamese. We totally destroyed their country, yet they seem to have bounced back just fine.

 

[Enron]

Not really, Burke. Given the odds at the beginning of the damn thing, the US went down big time. I'd consider it a defeat.

You're very right about it being a political war though.

Odds for who? No one had really had military success in Indo-China before the US invaded.

 

[JBF]

Wrong, the whole world benefits because it's better to have less people on the planet. We're overpopulated as it is, the less people the better, realistically.

 

[IrishZebra]

Wrong, the whole world benefits because it's better to have less people on the planet. We're overpopulated as it is, the less people the better, realistically.

We aren't overpopulated, there's plenty of resources for everyone to survive if two certain countries would fuck themselves and stop consuming so much.

There's enough grain on the earth to support 9 Billion people. The easier option is to stop Aid and let the developing world starve, then take the arable land to feed the West and Asia. Abhorrent but tactically sound.

 

[IrishZebra]

Odds for who? No one had really had military success in Indo-China before the US invaded.

I mean if the french can't win

 

[AlexDelPiero10]

Odds for who? No one had really had military success in Indo-China before the US invaded.

Come on. That's not the way bookies would have looked at it.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

We aren't overpopulated, there's plenty of resources for everyone to survive if two certain countries would fuck themselves and stop consuming so much.

There's enough grain on the earth to support 9 Billion people. The easier option is to stop Aid and let the developing world starve, then take the arable land to feed the West and Asia. Abhorrent but tactically sound.

True, and let Israel bomb the Mid East.

Come on. That's not the way bookies would have looked at it.

Yea, France rocked Vietnam...

 

[X Æ A-12]

Not really, Burke. Given the odds at the beginning of the damn thing, the US went down big time. I'd consider it a defeat.

You're very right about it being a political war though.

Well the US never surrenders we "tactically retreat" so we didn't lose it was more like a draw.