I would love to introduce you to this wonderful thing called agent orange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
But... but... the only reason we didn't win the Vietnam War was because we weren't trying hard enough, just like Afghanistan, right? /s
Let's face it. The only way the US wins a war against guerilla fighters is by getting our hands so dirty and bloody that we become the evil we are attempting to eradicate. And even then, we don't really ever win, because we'd end up driving more people into the arms of terrorist groups just like Al-Qaeda or ISIS.
There's a reason why people like @YUPPIE can't seem to articulate just exactly how we're supposed to defeat guerilla fighters, and it's either because they're too naive to really understand the truth, or because their argument would fall to pieces if they actually admitted the truth.
R.I.P. Democracy
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Vietnam "Conflict." A declaration of war never happened. I don't believe a total war would have been seen as acceptable as that would have demanded far more resources...and the political/public will to commit atrocities.
And?
You've already admitted the US has handicaps in place that prevent it from winning a war against an asymmetrical opponent, ergo this is a fairly adequate reflection of that.
But of course I fully expect you to contradict yourself here because of a compulsive inability not to kneejerk to even the slightest criticism of the armed forces. /yawn
- - - Updated - - -
Like here. You're not actually disputing the point, you just have to get the last word in.![]()
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
-Anastasius FochtWars are not won on the field of combat. Battles are, but those are only ever part of the story. To win a war you need to break the enemy's resolve, to force him to accept defeat. Otherwise the war will never end. Too many conflicts persist because battles are won but the hearts and minds of the people are not. Winning involves every level of society, from the generals and politicians to the shop girls and street cleaners. The infantryman with his rifle may be the blunt weapon used to win this fight, but he is neither the instigator nor the concluder.
"Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.
R.I.P. Democracy
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
When the US pulled out, it was fully controlled by South Vietnam.
- - - Updated - - -
No, not really. We made little attempt to resolve the root of the conflict and we were unwilling to eradicate the population. We could have reduced Hanoi to rubble. We could have run Linebacker II for many weeks far earlier in the war.
- - - Updated - - -
No, that exercise was a state on state conflict, not a COIN operation. Very different.
I react to uneducated criticism like yours.
Also not the part I was commenting on.
- - - Updated - - -
I am sure you will find most of them are actually aware of that.
We were there to "win", but that does not mean we were actually trying to win.
"He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign."
-Sun Tzu
- - - Updated - - -
I am not. I am pointing out that genocide is the only method that relies only on a military solution that is capable of ending an insurgency.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
how the fuck does every thread with kellhound in go to some war fantasy or ranting about city slickers. Do you not get bored?
People who've served in the armed forces are often very sensitive to criticism of said armed forces because of the sunk cost fallacy of having given a significant amount of time and energy to an enterprise that a) didn't quite turn out as glamorously as the recruiter who dropped by their high school led them to believe, and b) ultimately doesn't give a shit about them beyond their usefulness as a warm body.
You know. Same shit with people that work for large corporations and get butthurt whenever you point out said corporation is exploitative. If you kneejerk hard enough, you might even convince yourself that everything's fine.![]()
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Actually there is a difference when discussing state actor asymmetrical warfare as seen in the exercise and non-state actor asymmetrical warfare. You are WAY out of your league here.
When the US withdraw happened, the NVA was not in a position to launch an offensive against the capitol (see the ill fated Easter Offensive).
The US' track record with asymmetrical warfare regardless of the circumstances would indicate otherwise.
Again, "the US didn't lose the Vietnam War because South Vietnam was still technically in control when we withdrew" is as stupid as "you can't fire me, I quit". It's very very obviously a face saving measure.
It's just kind of hilarious that someone who professes to be familiar with foreign policy actually falls for it.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi