It's Over.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Steeplerot

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Fragging gung ho losers woulda been great when did
we become such pathetic militaristic PC types?

(This is sarcasm for those who know a bit about the people drafted and fought)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
CADsortaGUY said:
I agree, we can't let politicians manage wars - that's what we have Generals for. If the gov't gives the GO, they need to step back so the military can WIN the war. We've not done that - we always pussy foot around due to politics.
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly do not agree with Cad on this point and on two levels.

1. In Vietnam, one major key to winning was to take out North Vietnam. But the geopolitical consideration was the following somewhat gentleman's agreement with Russia and China. Vietnam could be fought as a "conventional war" and not go nuclear, as long as the USA did not use its ground troops to try to conquer North Vietnam. And if the USA even tried that stunt, China would intervene with its massive ground army. Hardly a bluff, since China did the same to MacAurthur in Korea. As the US troops had landed in South Korea earlier, easily repulsed the North Korean invasion, and when MacAurthur moved North far onto North Korean soil and topped another hill, ole dug out Doug found the entire Chinese army coming at him. And by the time the US retreat stopped, the US was pushed back to almost where they started. But still, the other part of the gentleman's agreement
was that the USA could try to bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age from the air. And in an era of no smart bombs, we saw our bombers running the gauntlet of Russian Sams.

2. Now flash forward another 30 years to the GWB era of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And none can say our army did not do their job with speed and dispatch. As in a space of just a week or so US tanks were rolling into Baghdad. And in Afghanistan the same thing was largely true. Our army won the war, but failed to win the peace. As all kinds of resistance groups in both countries armed themselves, and turned it into a classic guerrilla war. Sure the US Army can be locally strong at any given place and any given time, but there are not enough troops in the world to police and pacify an entire large country at the same time. And since the resistance is fighting on its own home turf, they know the place better than any occupying army. Then the US and Nato made the same mistake they made in Vietnam, namely the top down strategy, of supporting a central government that did little for their people. And the resistance tried the better bottom up strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the Common people. So yes, in my mind, Cad is entirely wrong, its the political responsibility of our leaders to understand and work with
the local people they are trying to win over. Our political leaders had no such clues or understanding, and that is why in a nutshell we are losing badly in Afghanistan.

But the American people, as a hot bed of apathy and lacking the ability to understand other people, do what they always do and just blame our army for the stupidity of our politicians.

But in saying this I also have to say Craig234 is quite correct. What good does it do to say we gave much better than we got in a foolish and losing war? Wow oh wow, we only lost 58,000 in Vietnam but we killed 2 million. And now in Iraq and Afghanistan we have an even bigger kill ratio. As an American it makes me so proud I could puke. And even better,
now we manage to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims as we lose all credibility for our foreign policy. And that is not to mention the three trillion dollars in real war cots we just pissed away.

In short, winning the war is nothing, winning the peace is what matters.
 
a777pilot

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Lemon law said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly do not agree with Cad on this point and on two levels.

1. In Vietnam, one major key to winning was to take out North Vietnam. But the geopolitical consideration was the following somewhat gentleman's agreement with Russia and China. Vietnam could be fought as a "conventional war" and not go nuclear, as long as the USA did not use its ground troops to try to conquer North Vietnam. And if the USA even tried that stunt, China would intervene with its massive ground army. Hardly a bluff, since China did the same to MacAurthur in Korea. As the US troops had landed in South Korea earlier, easily repulsed the North Korean invasion, and when MacAurthur moved North far onto North Korean soil and topped another hill, ole dug out Doug found the entire Chinese army coming at him. And by the time the US retreat stopped, the US was pushed back to almost where they started. But still, the other part of the gentleman's agreement
was that the USA could try to bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age from the air. And in an era of no smart bombs, we saw our bombers running the gauntlet of Russian Sams.

2. Now flash forward another 30 years to the GWB era of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And none can say our army did not do their job with speed and dispatch. As in a space of just a week or so US tanks were rolling into Baghdad. And in Afghanistan the same thing was largely true. Our army won the war, but failed to win the peace. As all kinds of resistance groups in both countries armed themselves, and turned it into a classic guerrilla war. Sure the US Army can be locally strong at any given place and any given time, but there are not enough troops in the world to police and pacify an entire large country at the same time. And since the resistance is fighting on its own home turf, they know the place better than any occupying army. Then the US and Nato made the same mistake they made in Vietnam, namely the top down strategy, of supporting a central government that did little for their people. And the resistance tried the better bottom up strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the Common people. So yes, in my mind, Cad is entirely wrong, its the political responsibility of our leaders to understand and work with
the local people they are trying to win over. Our political leaders had no such clues or understanding, and that is why in a nutshell we are losing badly in Afghanistan.

But the American people, as a hot bed of apathy and lacking the ability to understand other people, do what they always do and just blame our army for the stupidity of our politicians.

But in saying this I also have to say Craig234 is quite correct. What good does it do to say we gave much better than we got in a foolish and losing war? Wow oh wow, we only lost 58,000 in Vietnam but we killed 2 million. And now in Iraq and Afghanistan we have an even bigger kill ratio. As an American it makes me so proud I could puke. And even better,
now we manage to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims as we lose all credibility for our foreign policy. And that is not to mention the three trillion dollars in real war cots we just pissed away.

In short, winning the war is nothing, winning the peace is what matters.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything said, but in general...Well said!
 
Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Quote:
Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
I started this thread so I, not you, have a pretty good idea what the purpose of it is....

To remember what happened and to honor those that served......reguardless of ideology.
Precisely.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah but who do we honor and who do we curse, therein lies the rub.

Shall we honor Lynde England, Charles Granger, and Lt Calley too, or should they be excluded? What about our anti-war movement that helped to end a senseless and no win war, without it we might be still trying and failing to win in Vietnam. And what about the Vietnamese people themselves who fought and lived through both sides of the war?
And what about our main political and military figures, who really should have known better?

But one somewhat positive note about Vietnam is that Vietnamese people don't really hate us. To some extent we were just on the wrong side of a 3000 year old historical force that has always been a tradition, namely the Vietnamese people have always united to resist foreign domination.

Early on the chief Villain was almost always China, a huge country that could grab but not hold Vietnam any time it wanted it. Then the classic Vietnamese resistance would start up and not stop until foreign dominance was gone. As Vietnam would be under foreign domination in blocks of centuries. Of course in more recent times, the new villains became the colonial French and then the Japanese and then again the French.
And when the French again met their waterloo at Dien Bien foo, the fear became the commies would move in. But we have to ask ourselves how well the commies did in Afghanistan and Chechnya, with similar histories of resisting foreign domination.

But still, Vietnam has largely recovered from the ravages of war, and will likely join the list of US Asian allies, as a counter force to the new rise of China. And now that the US has joined the long and honored list that Vietnam has repulsed, the damage the US did to Vietnam is now by in large pacified. As they even gets some tourist bucks from visiting US troops.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq and the Pakistan we destabilized, their US resentments will probably not be as rapidly be pacified.

And why I ask the questions, what about the long British occupation of India? When the Brits took over India was nothing but a huge number of fragmented principalities, and when the Brits finally left, India was a modern single nation.
 
a777pilot

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
But still, Vietnam has largely recovered from the ravages of war, and will likely join the list of US Asian allies, as a counter force to the new rise of China. And now that the US has joined the long and honored list that Vietnam has repulsed, the damage the US did to Vietnam is now by in large pacified. As they even gets some tourist bucks from visiting US troops.
Click to expand...

They are guiding light, an stellar example of personal and political freedom to Asia and the rest of the world. If only we could be more like these freedom loving people.



I shall now go throw up
 
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,838
8,430
136
To the OP, thanks for posting this. As a "Nam vet myself, it gives me a chance to honor in passing, two fellow 'Nam vets and personal friends of mine who died recently, both from agent orange related illnesses, ultimately resulting in terminal cancer.

I got lucky. Although I convoyed through agent orange defoilated areas, I didn't have to roll around in the dirt there like some other guys had to.
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
Thanks to all who served over there.

I wasn't alive while it was going on, but I do appreciate all that you gave.
 
Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well this whole thread has really veered off on a wild tangent, as its become an entire US poster food fight.

Somewhat lost in all the food fight, is the lesson of what the USA didn't learn in the long and protracted Vietnam war. At the time the longest protracted US war, but now cheer up, Afghanistan has become even longer.

As all of the Kings horses and all the kings men, can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
a777pilot said:
Oh, I don't care if you post or not. But I like my title for this post. I am the OP, am I not?
Click to expand...

Actually it did sound sound like you cared, but feel free to pretend like you don't care now so you can save some face. Are you actually a new poster? Just common sense and good for the forum to make it clear what the thread is about in the title. But maybe you are the kind of person that just wants attention? You know, like a troll?
 
a777pilot

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Infohawk said:
Actually it did sound sound like you cared, but feel free to pretend like you don't care now so you can save some face. Are you actually a new poster? Just common sense and good for the forum to make it clear what the thread is about in the title. But maybe you are the kind of person that just wants attention? You know, like a troll?
Click to expand...

I am a troll but I'm not new to these sites, just this one. While it remains fun I'll stick around.

Your suggestion as to what a title ought be is well meaning and very good. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom