You used to be able to watch all of No End in Sight on youtube but they took it off so never mind... some guy still posted the second half of the movie(the shitty half haha) and you can watch the preview but unless you have netflix or something, ain't worth paying for... just read a couple of those books(Most important is the book Fiasco and I got it for like 5 bucks on the bargain table... Cobra II and Asssasins gate are also good)
"The US military does...capable and built to do"...thats what I said of nation-building, the military does its job its the political process that sometimes falters or support of the effort.
haha, much much more than 48,000 were drafted. Oh,immediately after. That wasn't a response to Tet, escalation had been happening for 4 years. The response was Abrams replacing Westmoreland, the end of esclation(West. asked for 200 thousand more troops), and Johnson announcing he would not seek re-election
My opinion on Iraq is mixed. There were no WMD's and though Saddam had some contact with Al Qaida, there was no nexus between Iraq and Al Qaida.
I suppor the war and of course am happy Saddam is dead and the Ba'athist Regime is gone. But don't let me tell you what happened, read for yourself...
Read this books about Iraq(Reading one would be fine but the more the better):
I always have to cram but now ill just add another comment.
The US military does what a military is capable and built to do. It can perform peace-keeping operations, reconstruction projects, create able security forces... but the political process is a civil affair
And how was Tet a strategic NVA victory? Giap really did intend to push out American forces, and instead it was a complete failure. Independent South Vietnamese units fought back and the SV people did not rise up...
Impressment was common in the 17-19th centuries. Besides, it was carried out in times of War. Since the Napoleon's exile, impressment had decreased. It was just a matter of jingoism. I think false intelligence and inept communication falls under "false pretense".
Can you give me any evidence where the U.S. military was successful in nation building?
Tet's long term impact was the drafting of 48,000 more U.S. citizens, causing more distress on the home front.
That's an explanation of impressment, not an excuse. There was no failure of intelligence and I thought you were implying the war was launched for different reasons than stated... it wasn't. The British had simply ended impressment two days before the US declared war.
Successful Peace Keeping operations: Kosovo, Bosnia, & Liberia to name a few
Successful Security Forces: Filipino, El Salvador, Afghan ect.
Wow. Typical persuasive arguement haha I remember that from English class. You sarcastically take the side of an opponent and say, falsely, what he supposively believes.
Always question the gov't. Success in the military comes from working with the population... in counter-insurgency, the population is your strategy. And for dominating the globe... sure whatever
Peace would be nice if it plausible. There will always be scum bags on the earth threatening peace... its how u deal with them
The war of 1812 was the result of failure of communication... you think impressment is a false pretense? I don't have room to go into detail on the list but the only one in serious question is Iraq whereas we were lead to war on false intelligence
Korea had the same pretenses and objectives as Vietnam except that we planned on overruning North Korea as well... how are they so different?
Tet was a political and propaganda victory. Strategically and tactically, the NVA and VC were hit hard.
Soldiers aren't dying for my rights- only for political agendas.
Yes, massacres were common. I don't how many times I have to point at evidence before it seeps into your thick skull.
Tactical level decisions are how the average Vietnamese saw us. Despite this, we still had strategic policy encouraging mass murder. If you really attended West Point, you would know about Rolling Thunder and Speedy Express.
It's funny how you're 15 but graduated West Point two years ago. Stop lying, kid.
It's funny how you say your pointing at all this evidence and then explain absolutely nothing. Your a complete dipshit, plain and simple. I've made my case, your not presenting anything legitimate or of any value to counter it and South Vietnam fell in 1975... The last US troops left in '73 dumbass
I don't get personal on youtube. I always put false ages, names, cities ect ect.
I guess it was two years ago but I'm serious when I call you a dipshit. Do a push-up and read a book sometime
When the last US troops left is completely irrelevant to our "massacre argument". And for the last time, here's the evidence- Rolling Thunder and Speedy Express.
But, you know what? You win. We'll do what you want. We'll never question the gov't. We'll kill anyone who doesn't want laissez-faire. We won't take civilian casualties into consideration. We will dominate the globe!
To begin with, you keep saying that because of tactical decisions the Vietnamese saw Americans in a bad light so I said that South Vietnam fell alone. That is always an anti-war arguement and sometimes it is partially true, but the answer presented makes the bad conclusion a reality(Anti-war protesters contested that the Tet offensive was not a success and that inevitably South Vietnam was going to fall. their answer was to pull out prematurely which made South Vietnam's collapse inevitable)
I hate arguing and losing my own sense of direction... you put a lot of words in my mouth, and I followed suit anyway and went with what you were saying
I never said we should've escalated the Vietnam war, though at the time I most likely would've supported it. What I don't like is a country losing the stomach and will to fight, you don't know where that path ends and I certainly don't want to find out.
You spend so many lives, money, and time... you stay the course and finish the job.
You speak as if the U.S. didn't commit any atrocities in the war. Well, they committed many. A general search on Google proves just that. But, I see it at last, you didn't want to win Vietnam for victory, but to stop "Communism". First, communism has never existed (only socialism). Second, that's a political viewpoint applied to stratagem. Last, if you're a centrist, what liberal values do you have to reconcile your conservative ones?
Every military has let-ups and consequently attrocities are commited... it's different when its policy. The Viet Cong set up shadow government's and stayed in power using terror tactics and brutal repressive methods but of course, nobody has any standarf for them anyway
Advocates of communism love to say communism has never existed, which of course is true... why? Because it is a utopian idea, and perfection is not possible.
I'm socially liberal- pro-choice, for gay marriage ect ect.
The people of Vietnam were the ones who suffered the most. Like you said, the Viet Cong oppressed them. But, the U.S. neglected these people for the 15 years we were there. However, in all fairness, Vietnamese supported Viet Cong over the U.S. only because it promised a more idealistic future.
I'm an advocate of Communism and utopia? To be fair, I think Communism is just as stupid as laissez-faire. I believe in free trade and market with just regulation.
The US never neglected the South Vietnemse people. We pressured the South Vietnamese into passing land reform that would benefit peasants, giving them ownership of the land they tilled.
Some 350 thousand people fled the North for the South when the two were seperated for obvious reasons.
We were there for 11 years, many of which we had a supporting role. The only years we may have neglected the people were when Westmoreland was still around + we had reached a tip of esclation 1967-1968
Our "noble" soldiers routinely massacred entire villages. Citizens of South Vietnam were forced to rely on gov't handouts to survive since the U.S. initiated its escalation in 1965. Vietnam serves as a historical landmark which states something that happens in history repeatedly: If a foreign power attempts to impose itself on another people, those people will inevitably overthrow it. This happened during Imperialism, Colonialism, American Revolution, Vietnam War, and now, Iraq.
It's not a surprise that someone that knew little if anything about the war would make such a bold, false, and insulting claim like that.
When? Where? Besides the Mai Lai massacre, which was an isolated case of dipshits comming a horrific attrocity... what are you talking about? I doubt you even know...
The Vietnam war stands for a different landmark: Democracies cannot withstand a longterm occupation.
Too bad we left South Vietnam completely 2 years before the war ended
Oh, wow, pull the oldest trick in the book: "An isolated incident." The very colonel commanding that unit admitted "every battalion unit had its My Lai". You want more? How about the 101st massacre in the highlands? 320 alleged cases of rape, torture, and murder according to a Pentagon statement. Maybe Operation Speedy Express or Rolling Thunder and their civilian death tolls?
So much bloodshed. Hardly reminiscent of a "civilized army".
Trust me, kid, I know. You are just willfully ignorant.
So your arguement right now is that rapd, torture, and murder was US policy? I'm simply saying that these events were 95% of the time the result of soldiers at the tactical levels decisions. He was defending his unit saying they were confused, which they werent. Just about every unit has as event where they accidentally kill civilians... that's war
Actually, if I was willfully ignorant I would follow what Hollywood and popular media tells me. Really, their supportive of the Vietnam War? LOL!
95%? Where did you get that? Did you conjure it up? That's your best defense? It's war? Of course it's war. Accidental civilian casualties show the incompetence of U.S. military that despite all our technological advances, we still are far from perfect. Purposeful civilian casualties (massacres) show the cruelty of the U.S. military.
Willfully ignorant means you choose not to believe in certain things despite enormous evidence to the contrary. Hollywood and popular media is just propaganda.
Lol sorry, I put in "Id say that 95%..." but had to cut it out because there was no room.
Whoever said the US military was perfect? Your a complete hypocrite, dismissing countless attrocities commited by Communist forces but exaggerating a few commited by the US military. A few soldiers never represent a whole military, saying they do shows ignorance
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Your argument is that US policy is rape and murder so please, show me evidence of this
I never dismissed Communist atrocities. I thought we both had a consensus and had moved beyond that.
Exaggerating? I can hardly imagine murder, rape, and systematic cleansing as overdone.
My argument is that it's policy but that the U.S. military is not the heroic, infallible entity you've been brainwashed by jingoists to believe.
If the best we can do to justify our crimes is say they're better than the Communists', then maybe that's the place you and I disagree because I value life.
To begin with, I'm a 2006 Westpoint Graduate. But we're not talking about personal life here...
What you don't understand is that there's no such thing as an infallible military. Any organization is going to have let-downs and its members are going to make mistakes... thats inevitable. So when an organization is based around killing people, those mistakes and/or let-downs are going to be deadly
Systematic cleansing? Get a hold of yourself... Your too influenced by Hollywood
I know there is no such thing as an infallible military. That was my point- the U.S. military is not the one portrayed by Hollywood.
"Systematic cleansing" is just a euphemism for massacre. I've think I've listed enough that you'd be a fool to deny them.
And no, when an institution is based on immoral values, then mistakes are inevitable. But for all the "honor, duty, country" rhetoric one hears from the CO's, it's a shame some soldiers still find it perfectly normal massacring entire villages
Stop pretending I ever denied massacres happened. Ther not common or significant, they don't reflect the actions of the greater military and are commited independently... on the tactical level, dipshit sargeants deciding their going to kill civilians. It's criminal action and unavoidable.
What I'm interpreting from your saying right now is basically that the US military sucks and shouldn't exist.."Immoral values"? Your not bring up any evidence of that being policy, your just using rhetoric
So many lives wasted for nothing. And not for the reason most people think. So many brave men fought and died only to have there American Politicians and radical idealists tell them they were wrong and that we should quit. Not to mention the before mentioned politicians gave ridiculous rules of engagement and other ridiculous "policies." It's almost as if they wanted us to loss from the beginning. I hate politicians.
Look, as you can tell I am an idealist. I believe that America embarks on a war that it should carry the course and win. After we left Vietnam, 1 million people were killed... not to mention the fall to Communism in Laos and Cambodia.
The defeat in southeast Asia was almost bigger than the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion... if not bigger
Anyways, the unifying theme is not the same. Washington fought to form/free a nation, not to bind two seperated ones together.
#1- The Vietnam-Revolution analogy isn't my own, but one I've heard from 2 of my professors (both of whom know far more than you and I ever will on this matter). You don't accept logical connections because it conflicts with your jingoism.
#2- According to you, when gov't imposes an unjust war, a population should follow unquestioningly. If that's patriotism to you, it's totalitarian to me.
#3- I hate liberals just as much as I hate conservatives. You all are hellbent on your "righteousness".
1- I understand the analogy, I just don't agree with it. I would argue with a teacher thtsaid that
2-Vietnam was not unjust. If you were one of the million killed after we left in Vietnam, or one of the million killed in a massacre or concentration camp under the Khmer rouge in Cambodia,or even one to be killed under the Laos communist government(though not nearly as bad) you would not feel the same
3-I always considered myself a centrist(notice the name?) though others call me consrvative so.
tubub - Outstanding work bro. The only thing I would've mentioned would be: the Communist North Vietnamese praised the "Anti-War Movement" in the U.S. They said that without the domestic U.S. Anti-War Activists, they wouldn't have been able to win. Excellent work bro.
It shows that even the world's largest military cannot win a war without public opinion and further proves(earlier examples being the French IndoChina war and British war in Myanamar) that a democracy cannot withstand a long-term occupation
I'd hate to say this to you but it's a cold fact: 60,000 dead. To me, that's a loss. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice more American lives just to further your political agenda but I certainly am not. We went to war without declaring war, without feasible pretenses, and without a strategy. If LBJ had left the war planning to the Pentagon, we might have seen better results. If you look analytically, you'll find the Vietcong were strikingly similar to our own Revolution.
The day you lose your will to fight is the day you lose your freedom.
We made mistakes in the initial phases of the war...so we cut and run? Patton once said "Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war."
btw, the Viet Cong commited countless attrocties and used terror tactics as a power tool. The American revolution was drastically different in almost every aspect...
Wow, you just proved your right-wing idiocy and historical incompetence.
Vietnam was based on paranoia of the Domino theory. Our pretense was wrong. You take a jingoist approach on war. "No retreat" sounds heroic and patriotic but it's not always rational.
The American revolution saw Washington as "Ho Chi Minh" leading rebel forces from foreign oppression using unconventional, guerrilla tactics which were than seen as cowardly. The context is different, but the unifying theme is the same.
Wow, calm the fuck down. You hurt yourself more jumping off the ladder than you do finishing the treck. It's not about whether it sounds "patriotic" or "heroic"... we spent 700 billion dollars and over 50,000 men's lives and what happens? The same type of men that decided to go to war decide its time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory why?! what was it all for?!
That is pushing a political agenda! Washington is no Ho Chi Mihn no room...
USA focked in vietnã
Usa FOcked In Iraq
NOW USA focked in economy
oslec70 3 years ago
You used to be able to watch all of No End in Sight on youtube but they took it off so never mind... some guy still posted the second half of the movie(the shitty half haha) and you can watch the preview but unless you have netflix or something, ain't worth paying for... just read a couple of those books(Most important is the book Fiasco and I got it for like 5 bucks on the bargain table... Cobra II and Asssasins gate are also good)
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
"The US military does...capable and built to do"...thats what I said of nation-building, the military does its job its the political process that sometimes falters or support of the effort.
haha, much much more than 48,000 were drafted. Oh,immediately after. That wasn't a response to Tet, escalation had been happening for 4 years. The response was Abrams replacing Westmoreland, the end of esclation(West. asked for 200 thousand more troops), and Johnson announcing he would not seek re-election
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
False pretenses are unjustified reasons for war. Stop distorting it. I don't have time to refute your evidence, and plus, we're already off topic.
We are going nowhere with this argument. Everytime one of us makes an argument, the other refutes it and starts on another tangent.
We share a different view on U.S.: I believe the government is for the people, not the other way around. You can speak for yourself.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
hahahaha i read the whole argument between you two......im so bored.....
mmmmmmm....i think you both made very fine cases but im gonna give my vote to the Nationalcentristpart.
By the way I really am 15. When Morgoth295 said you were 15 i was like "Oh shit, someone my age is making arguments like this? I gots to catch up!".
But just on question Nationalcentr....rt:
whats your opinion on Iraq? I know this question sounds stupid but please feed my curtiosity. Im sorta a centrist myself.
hbrtmran 3 years ago
My opinion on Iraq is mixed. There were no WMD's and though Saddam had some contact with Al Qaida, there was no nexus between Iraq and Al Qaida.
I suppor the war and of course am happy Saddam is dead and the Ba'athist Regime is gone. But don't let me tell you what happened, read for yourself...
Read this books about Iraq(Reading one would be fine but the more the better):
1. *Fiasco
2. Assassins Gate
3. Cobra II
4. The Occupation of Iraq
5. 9/11 Com. Report
film--No End in Sight
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
@hbrtmran
how are you doing these days bro lol
tubub 5 months ago
watch?v=KiW5FXs1n6M
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
I always have to cram but now ill just add another comment.
The US military does what a military is capable and built to do. It can perform peace-keeping operations, reconstruction projects, create able security forces... but the political process is a civil affair
And how was Tet a strategic NVA victory? Giap really did intend to push out American forces, and instead it was a complete failure. Independent South Vietnamese units fought back and the SV people did not rise up...
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Impressment was common in the 17-19th centuries. Besides, it was carried out in times of War. Since the Napoleon's exile, impressment had decreased. It was just a matter of jingoism. I think false intelligence and inept communication falls under "false pretense".
Can you give me any evidence where the U.S. military was successful in nation building?
Tet's long term impact was the drafting of 48,000 more U.S. citizens, causing more distress on the home front.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
That's an explanation of impressment, not an excuse. There was no failure of intelligence and I thought you were implying the war was launched for different reasons than stated... it wasn't. The British had simply ended impressment two days before the US declared war.
Successful Peace Keeping operations: Kosovo, Bosnia, & Liberia to name a few
Successful Security Forces: Filipino, El Salvador, Afghan ect.
Successful Reconstruction: Germany, Japan, Iraq
room...
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Wow. Typical persuasive arguement haha I remember that from English class. You sarcastically take the side of an opponent and say, falsely, what he supposively believes.
Always question the gov't. Success in the military comes from working with the population... in counter-insurgency, the population is your strategy. And for dominating the globe... sure whatever
Peace would be nice if it plausible. There will always be scum bags on the earth threatening peace... its how u deal with them
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
I'm not against war. Just stupid war. War for the sake of war itself, to me, is stupid.
The War of 1812, Spanish-American War, WW1, Vietnam, and Iraq are all based on false pretenses.
The Revolution, Quasi-War, Barbary War, Civil War, WW2, Korean War, Gulf War, and the Afghan War are all justified.
The U.S. military is uncontested in combat but is utterly incompetent at nation building.
Last- Tet was a tactical U.S. victory, but a strategic NVA victory.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
The war of 1812 was the result of failure of communication... you think impressment is a false pretense? I don't have room to go into detail on the list but the only one in serious question is Iraq whereas we were lead to war on false intelligence
Korea had the same pretenses and objectives as Vietnam except that we planned on overruning North Korea as well... how are they so different?
Tet was a political and propaganda victory. Strategically and tactically, the NVA and VC were hit hard.
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
So enjoy your rights and freedom dipshit
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Soldiers aren't dying for my rights- only for political agendas.
Yes, massacres were common. I don't how many times I have to point at evidence before it seeps into your thick skull.
Tactical level decisions are how the average Vietnamese saw us. Despite this, we still had strategic policy encouraging mass murder. If you really attended West Point, you would know about Rolling Thunder and Speedy Express.
It's funny how you're 15 but graduated West Point two years ago. Stop lying, kid.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
It's funny how you say your pointing at all this evidence and then explain absolutely nothing. Your a complete dipshit, plain and simple. I've made my case, your not presenting anything legitimate or of any value to counter it and South Vietnam fell in 1975... The last US troops left in '73 dumbass
I don't get personal on youtube. I always put false ages, names, cities ect ect.
I guess it was two years ago but I'm serious when I call you a dipshit. Do a push-up and read a book sometime
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
When the last US troops left is completely irrelevant to our "massacre argument". And for the last time, here's the evidence- Rolling Thunder and Speedy Express.
But, you know what? You win. We'll do what you want. We'll never question the gov't. We'll kill anyone who doesn't want laissez-faire. We won't take civilian casualties into consideration. We will dominate the globe!
But hey, at least you'll be happy, right?
Peace, soldier. Wouldn't that be nice?
Morgoth295 3 years ago
To begin with, you keep saying that because of tactical decisions the Vietnamese saw Americans in a bad light so I said that South Vietnam fell alone. That is always an anti-war arguement and sometimes it is partially true, but the answer presented makes the bad conclusion a reality(Anti-war protesters contested that the Tet offensive was not a success and that inevitably South Vietnam was going to fall. their answer was to pull out prematurely which made South Vietnam's collapse inevitable)
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
I hate arguing and losing my own sense of direction... you put a lot of words in my mouth, and I followed suit anyway and went with what you were saying
I never said we should've escalated the Vietnam war, though at the time I most likely would've supported it. What I don't like is a country losing the stomach and will to fight, you don't know where that path ends and I certainly don't want to find out.
You spend so many lives, money, and time... you stay the course and finish the job.
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
You speak as if the U.S. didn't commit any atrocities in the war. Well, they committed many. A general search on Google proves just that. But, I see it at last, you didn't want to win Vietnam for victory, but to stop "Communism". First, communism has never existed (only socialism). Second, that's a political viewpoint applied to stratagem. Last, if you're a centrist, what liberal values do you have to reconcile your conservative ones?
Morgoth295 3 years ago
Every military has let-ups and consequently attrocities are commited... it's different when its policy. The Viet Cong set up shadow government's and stayed in power using terror tactics and brutal repressive methods but of course, nobody has any standarf for them anyway
Advocates of communism love to say communism has never existed, which of course is true... why? Because it is a utopian idea, and perfection is not possible.
I'm socially liberal- pro-choice, for gay marriage ect ect.
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Taken, you're a centrist.
The people of Vietnam were the ones who suffered the most. Like you said, the Viet Cong oppressed them. But, the U.S. neglected these people for the 15 years we were there. However, in all fairness, Vietnamese supported Viet Cong over the U.S. only because it promised a more idealistic future.
I'm an advocate of Communism and utopia? To be fair, I think Communism is just as stupid as laissez-faire. I believe in free trade and market with just regulation.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
The US never neglected the South Vietnemse people. We pressured the South Vietnamese into passing land reform that would benefit peasants, giving them ownership of the land they tilled.
Some 350 thousand people fled the North for the South when the two were seperated for obvious reasons.
We were there for 11 years, many of which we had a supporting role. The only years we may have neglected the people were when Westmoreland was still around + we had reached a tip of esclation 1967-1968
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Our "noble" soldiers routinely massacred entire villages. Citizens of South Vietnam were forced to rely on gov't handouts to survive since the U.S. initiated its escalation in 1965. Vietnam serves as a historical landmark which states something that happens in history repeatedly: If a foreign power attempts to impose itself on another people, those people will inevitably overthrow it. This happened during Imperialism, Colonialism, American Revolution, Vietnam War, and now, Iraq.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
It's not a surprise that someone that knew little if anything about the war would make such a bold, false, and insulting claim like that.
When? Where? Besides the Mai Lai massacre, which was an isolated case of dipshits comming a horrific attrocity... what are you talking about? I doubt you even know...
The Vietnam war stands for a different landmark: Democracies cannot withstand a longterm occupation.
Too bad we left South Vietnam completely 2 years before the war ended
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Oh, wow, pull the oldest trick in the book: "An isolated incident." The very colonel commanding that unit admitted "every battalion unit had its My Lai". You want more? How about the 101st massacre in the highlands? 320 alleged cases of rape, torture, and murder according to a Pentagon statement. Maybe Operation Speedy Express or Rolling Thunder and their civilian death tolls?
So much bloodshed. Hardly reminiscent of a "civilized army".
Trust me, kid, I know. You are just willfully ignorant.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
So your arguement right now is that rapd, torture, and murder was US policy? I'm simply saying that these events were 95% of the time the result of soldiers at the tactical levels decisions. He was defending his unit saying they were confused, which they werent. Just about every unit has as event where they accidentally kill civilians... that's war
Actually, if I was willfully ignorant I would follow what Hollywood and popular media tells me. Really, their supportive of the Vietnam War? LOL!
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
95%? Where did you get that? Did you conjure it up? That's your best defense? It's war? Of course it's war. Accidental civilian casualties show the incompetence of U.S. military that despite all our technological advances, we still are far from perfect. Purposeful civilian casualties (massacres) show the cruelty of the U.S. military.
Willfully ignorant means you choose not to believe in certain things despite enormous evidence to the contrary. Hollywood and popular media is just propaganda.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
Lol sorry, I put in "Id say that 95%..." but had to cut it out because there was no room.
Whoever said the US military was perfect? Your a complete hypocrite, dismissing countless attrocities commited by Communist forces but exaggerating a few commited by the US military. A few soldiers never represent a whole military, saying they do shows ignorance
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Your argument is that US policy is rape and murder so please, show me evidence of this
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
I never dismissed Communist atrocities. I thought we both had a consensus and had moved beyond that.
Exaggerating? I can hardly imagine murder, rape, and systematic cleansing as overdone.
My argument is that it's policy but that the U.S. military is not the heroic, infallible entity you've been brainwashed by jingoists to believe.
If the best we can do to justify our crimes is say they're better than the Communists', then maybe that's the place you and I disagree because I value life.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
To begin with, I'm a 2006 Westpoint Graduate. But we're not talking about personal life here...
What you don't understand is that there's no such thing as an infallible military. Any organization is going to have let-downs and its members are going to make mistakes... thats inevitable. So when an organization is based around killing people, those mistakes and/or let-downs are going to be deadly
Systematic cleansing? Get a hold of yourself... Your too influenced by Hollywood
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
I know there is no such thing as an infallible military. That was my point- the U.S. military is not the one portrayed by Hollywood.
"Systematic cleansing" is just a euphemism for massacre. I've think I've listed enough that you'd be a fool to deny them.
And no, when an institution is based on immoral values, then mistakes are inevitable. But for all the "honor, duty, country" rhetoric one hears from the CO's, it's a shame some soldiers still find it perfectly normal massacring entire villages
Morgoth295 3 years ago
Stop pretending I ever denied massacres happened. Ther not common or significant, they don't reflect the actions of the greater military and are commited independently... on the tactical level, dipshit sargeants deciding their going to kill civilians. It's criminal action and unavoidable.
What I'm interpreting from your saying right now is basically that the US military sucks and shouldn't exist.."Immoral values"? Your not bring up any evidence of that being policy, your just using rhetoric
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
So many lives wasted for nothing. And not for the reason most people think. So many brave men fought and died only to have there American Politicians and radical idealists tell them they were wrong and that we should quit. Not to mention the before mentioned politicians gave ridiculous rules of engagement and other ridiculous "policies." It's almost as if they wanted us to loss from the beginning. I hate politicians.
Vdubb 3 years ago 2
Look, as you can tell I am an idealist. I believe that America embarks on a war that it should carry the course and win. After we left Vietnam, 1 million people were killed... not to mention the fall to Communism in Laos and Cambodia.
The defeat in southeast Asia was almost bigger than the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion... if not bigger
Anyways, the unifying theme is not the same. Washington fought to form/free a nation, not to bind two seperated ones together.
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
#1- The Vietnam-Revolution analogy isn't my own, but one I've heard from 2 of my professors (both of whom know far more than you and I ever will on this matter). You don't accept logical connections because it conflicts with your jingoism.
#2- According to you, when gov't imposes an unjust war, a population should follow unquestioningly. If that's patriotism to you, it's totalitarian to me.
#3- I hate liberals just as much as I hate conservatives. You all are hellbent on your "righteousness".
Morgoth295 3 years ago
1- I understand the analogy, I just don't agree with it. I would argue with a teacher thtsaid that
2-Vietnam was not unjust. If you were one of the million killed after we left in Vietnam, or one of the million killed in a massacre or concentration camp under the Khmer rouge in Cambodia,or even one to be killed under the Laos communist government(though not nearly as bad) you would not feel the same
3-I always considered myself a centrist(notice the name?) though others call me consrvative so.
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
tubub - Outstanding work bro. The only thing I would've mentioned would be: the Communist North Vietnamese praised the "Anti-War Movement" in the U.S. They said that without the domestic U.S. Anti-War Activists, they wouldn't have been able to win. Excellent work bro.
-RwRForever
rwrforever 3 years ago
Had we'd've kept fighting in Vietnam without the politics and funding, our soldiers would have wiped those jungles clean.
KenTo0ky 3 years ago
It shows that even the world's largest military cannot win a war without public opinion and further proves(earlier examples being the French IndoChina war and British war in Myanamar) that a democracy cannot withstand a long-term occupation
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Vietnam epitomizes how even a giant cannot withstand the onslaught of a relentless, brave few.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
The enemy did not win by military might.
Our media and own people brought us out.
Vietnamese Generals have admitted that our military was destroying them.
AmericanPatriot92 3 years ago
I'd hate to say this to you but it's a cold fact: 60,000 dead. To me, that's a loss. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice more American lives just to further your political agenda but I certainly am not. We went to war without declaring war, without feasible pretenses, and without a strategy. If LBJ had left the war planning to the Pentagon, we might have seen better results. If you look analytically, you'll find the Vietcong were strikingly similar to our own Revolution.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
The day you lose your will to fight is the day you lose your freedom.
We made mistakes in the initial phases of the war...so we cut and run? Patton once said "Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war."
btw, the Viet Cong commited countless attrocties and used terror tactics as a power tool. The American revolution was drastically different in almost every aspect...
-tubub
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago
Wow, you just proved your right-wing idiocy and historical incompetence.
Vietnam was based on paranoia of the Domino theory. Our pretense was wrong. You take a jingoist approach on war. "No retreat" sounds heroic and patriotic but it's not always rational.
The American revolution saw Washington as "Ho Chi Minh" leading rebel forces from foreign oppression using unconventional, guerrilla tactics which were than seen as cowardly. The context is different, but the unifying theme is the same.
Morgoth295 3 years ago
Well you've just proved your left-wing idiocy.
Wow, calm the fuck down. You hurt yourself more jumping off the ladder than you do finishing the treck. It's not about whether it sounds "patriotic" or "heroic"... we spent 700 billion dollars and over 50,000 men's lives and what happens? The same type of men that decided to go to war decide its time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory why?! what was it all for?!
That is pushing a political agenda! Washington is no Ho Chi Mihn no room...
NationalCentristPart 3 years ago