The Only American General to Lose a War Dead at 91

[DeathByTheSword]

So if we were allies with the Irish while they were part of the British Empire, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the U.S. to establish forts there and arm the Irish against the British. Don't you think the British Empire might have decalred war on us for doing something which so flagrantly violated their sovreignty?

i dont care about your stupid war but i wanna say this...this is all about whos point of view you are looking from...the US thought that the indian lands were part of the US...thus british helping them out with weapons was violation of the US sovereigty...but the indians saw the US as invaders of THEIR lands thus felt compelled to defend them selves...from the US point of view the UK was helping 'terrorists' and from a indian point of view the UK was battling the invader...


excatly the same can be said about your irish UK comparison...

just saying this in general...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
the US thought that the indian lands were part of the US...thus british helping them out with weapons was violation of the US sovereigty...but the indians saw the US as invaders of THEIR lands thus felt compelled to defend them selves...from the US point of view the UK was helping 'terrorists' and from a indian point of view the UK was battling the invader.

I'm not in disagreement that wrt the Indians, we were the bad guys. I'm glad the Brits helped them out because they were able to fight for themselves because of it. Regardless, it was a violation of American sovreignty for the Brits to arm them. It was an even more serious breach of our sovreignty for the British to be occupying what was internationally recognized as our territory, even if it was actually the Indians territory.

The War of 1812 was between the U.S. and Great Britain, thus what matters is why the U.S. declared war on Great Britain, and not whether the Indians had a legitmate greivenace against the Americans.

We recognize that we were the agressors in the Meixcan-American War and the Spanish American War as well as most of the Indian Wars. Those wars were all fought for conquest. While we declared war on Great Britain, it was a war of self-defence. The conquest of Canada was not a reason we went to war, but if we could take it during the war, that was a bonus.

[DeathByTheSword]

fine by me but like i said it is just from which point of view you are looking

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Completely intact, except for billions of dollars wasted, tons of equipment left behind, disillusioned soldiers plus thousands dead and wounded.

We left equipment behind for ARVN, but abandoned nothing to the enemy. It was an orderly phased withdrawl over 4 years, starting in 1969. There is no serious dispute about this. We lost thousands of dead and wounded, but inflicted a million casualties ourselves.

Originally posted by Tingkai

The fact is the U.S. was defeated by an army of peasants. The US was never able to win against the Vietnamese.

We wiped out the peasant army (the Viet Cong). The NVA was a professional force with far more experience on average at lower ranks than the U.S. Army. Nonetheless they were beaten repeatedly by U.S. forces. Your statement, like so many of your statements, doesn't even contain a germ of truth.

Originally posted by Tingkai

South Vietnam was lost long before 1975. The Viet Cong controlled the countryside and had free movement within the cities.

Again, you simply don't know what you are talking about. Why didn't the VC simply take over in 1972 or 1973 when U.S. ground strength was next to nil? Because the VC was destroyed as a military force in 1969. Sure they had some cells that did not get rolled up by the Phoenix program or gunned down during Tet, but they had trouble even puting together company sized operations anywhere in the South. The NVA had to painstakingly infiltrate professional replacements to the south in order to maintain any pressure at all.

Originally posted by Tingkai

The South Vietnamese was nothing more than a corrupt puppet of the US and hundreds of South Vietnamese government officials were actually Viet Cong.

They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

Originally posted by Tingkai

The fact is the Nixon adminstration started an illegal, secret war by attacking a neutral country. If the bombings were just than Nixon would not have had to hide it.

More ignorance. The illegal and secret war had been going on for many years with little or no U.S. involvement, and it was started by the NVA. Nixon kept the bombing a secret not because it was illegal for the U.S. to bomb under international law, but because he didn't want to ask congress for direct authorization. A domestic political consideration.

Originally posted by Tingkai

In the end, 50,000+ American soldiers died for nothing. They died in vain so that U.S. politicians could make the empty boast that they had achieved peace with honor.

A tiny minority died after Nixon decided to pull out and made his "Peace with Honor" statement. Read a book sometime. And they didn't die for nothing, they killed a lot of communists which is always worthwhile.

Originally posted by Tingkai

Millions of people died because American politicians thought they were invincible.

Hubris had little or nothing to do with it. It was largely a failure of our democratically elected leadership to understand that they could not win a war where the enemy could not be attacked. The best possible outcome in such a circumstance was a stalemate, which is in fact where we left things. Nixon actually understood this, but his paranoia brought his government down (Wategate) and with it his intention to leave the RVN intact was doomed in the long run.

Originally posted by Tingkai

The West won the Cold War by default, the U.S. military had nothing to do with it. The Soviet Union collapsed from within. It couldn't handle it's defeat in Afghanistan.

Stupider and stupider he goes, when will he stop, nobody knows!

What percentage of the Soviet army was aligned against the West during the height of the fighting in Afghanistan? What percentage of the Soviet GNP was spent on defense? What was the opportunity cost of having an enormous draft army and an enormous security apparatus for decades? What was the cost of bulding over 20,000 nuclear weapons, hundreds of submarines, a space race, etc. ad nauseum.

Originally posted by Tingkai

While not objectively an intelligent statement, it is certainly your best effort in the thread so far. Congratulations, I guess.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
fine by me but like i said it is just from which point of view you are looking

Not for the points being argued, which is why the U.S. declared war, and whether those reasons were valid.

It has been posited by the Canadians that the War of 1812 was simply an attempted land grab, and that since they were not conquered, they therefore won the war. They dismiss our legitimate greivances with the Mother Country. Regardless of whether or not the Indians had legitmate grievences with us has no bearing on whether our greivences with Great Britain were legitimate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

That sez more about Asia than it does about the South Vietnamese. The SV government was so corrupt that the Communist foreces were often better supplied with American supplies than ARVN.

they didn't die for nothing, they killed a lot of communists which is always worthwhile.

Uhm, screw you.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Sikander
They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

That sez more about Asia than it does about the South Vietnamese. The SV government was so corrupt that the Communist foreces were often better supplied with American supplies than ARVN.

There was certainly an immense amount of material corruption, in part because of the mountains of supplies that the U.S. poured into that poor country. But it's important not to confuse this with moral corruption. Over a million South Vietnamese died in the conflict, and they were not all hapless victims of poorly aimed napalm or communist death squads. Many of them died bravely fighting for their country (whichever side that happened to be).

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

they didn't die for nothing, they killed a lot of communists which is always worthwhile.

Uhm, screw you.

Sorry I couldn't resist the troll. Let me restate it to this:

During a decades long struggle between the free world and monolithic totalitarian communism, killing a lot of communists has to look pretty damned good to the free world.

[chequita guevara]

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
fine by me but like i said it is just from which point of view you are looking

the brits were the ones accused of violating US soverienty, and THEY had recognized the border since 1783.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sikander
We lost thousands of dead and wounded, but inflicted a million casualties ourselves.
We wiped out the peasant army (the Viet Cong). The NVA was a professional force with far more experience on average at lower ranks than the U.S. Army. Nonetheless they were beaten repeatedly by U.S. forces.

You don't get it do you.

You're making the same mistakes that led to the US losing the war.

Victory was never about how many people the Americans could killed.

The US killed more than a million Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese still won.

The US assassinated people they thought were Viet Cong leaders, the Vietnamese still won.

The US bombed, napalmed and shot men, women and children, and the Vietnamese still won.

The US inflicted heavy casualties in hundreds of firefights, but the Vietnamese still won.

Everytime the US knocked down the Vietnamese, the Vietnamese bounced back and that's why the Vietnamese won.

For every Vietnamese killed by an American, another was willing to step up and fight the occupiers.

Westmoreland and the other generals thought they could win a war of attrition, that they could destroy the enemy, they were wrong, and the US lost.

The only things the US achieved was a lot of people killed, including innocent civilians. For nothing.

Try reading some books about military strategy, start with Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Originally posted by Sikander
They weren't particularly corrupt by Asian standards. The exceptional group was the NVA, at least for a time.

Okay, so now we know you that you don't anything about politics or the meaning of corruption.

Originally posted by Sikander
Nixon kept the bombing a secret not because it was illegal for the U.S. to bomb under international law, but because he didn't want to ask congress for direct authorization.

Hello, is anyone home.

By keeping it secret and not getting Congress approval, it was an illegal war.

Originally posted by Sikander
A tiny minority died after Nixon decided to pull out and made his "Peace with Honor" statement.

Read up on the history of the Vietnam War. Peace with honour didn't start with Nixon. From the very beginnig, the US politicians felt honoured bound to keep promises made by someone else and they were going to keep fighting until there was peace.

Originally posted by Sikander
What percentage of the Soviet GNP was spent on defense? What was the opportunity cost of having an enormous draft army and an enormous security apparatus for decades? What was the cost of bulding over 20,000 nuclear weapons, hundreds of submarines, a space race, etc. ad nauseum.

Oh lord, another poly economist. I'm not even going to begin to tell you what you don't understand.

[Patroklos]

Try reading some books about military strategy, start with Sun Tzu's Art of War.

God, you are a ****ing amateur.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

im gonna threadjack my own thread, but who cares.

theres about a 50% chance that I will be drafted within the next year, and I can kinda choose what I want to do (you can kinda request it, but they dont have to give it to you.) could someone explain how recon works (in general what you do), how tanks work (in general what you do in an armored brigade), and what the infantry is all about, and what alpin units are about. thanks.

[Tingkai]

Don't worry Pat, I think they have a comic version for you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
im gonna threadjack my own thread, but who cares.

theres about a 50% chance that I will be drafted within the next year, and I can kinda choose what I want to do (you can kinda request it, but they dont have to give it to you.) could someone explain how recon works (in general what you do), how tanks work (in general what you do in an armored brigade), and what the infantry is all about, and what alpin units are about. thanks.

alpine units get to move 3 squares in any terrain. They get to ski across deserts. really cool.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dis




If we didn't have any objectives how could we have not achieved those objectives.

precisely the point. You can't win a war where you choose to fight and die for nothing. We didn't really have objectives just this bizarre faith that a large military presence would somehow magically ensure a favorable political outcome.