[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Click for more| Home]

The US army called the Vietnam war a "strategic failure".

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 384
Thread images: 29

The US army called the Vietnam war a "strategic failure".

So why can't anonymous people on the internet come to terms with that?
>>
>>27518799
Because that's what they have to say.

communism didn't spread
a cease fire was brokered between north Vietnam and South Vietam just like the Korean peninsula even if the North invaded again after the U.S pulled out.

everything the U.S sought after was accomplished both in campaign and after.
>>
We left at a stalemate. After we left, the south fell. If we had stayed, Vietnam would look like Korea does today.
>>
>>27518816
>communism didn't spread
Except when it overran the south almost immediately after the US left?

>>27518823
>if we had won, things would be different
Well duh.

So you don't agree when the US army says Vietnam was a strategic failure?
>>
File: 1407770440796.jpg (52KB, 500x666px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1407770440796.jpg
52KB, 500x666px
inb4 retards post pictures of McDonalds not knowing what CES franchising is
>>
Brace for thread of people trying to justify that "failure" doesn't mean "failure"
>>
>>27518838
huh, i don't see any other peoples republics in western Asia other than the aforementioned North Korea.
poor quality bait, kid.
>>
>>27518851
I don't understand.

The US army is wrong about Vietnam because Korea?
>>
>>27518851
Laos
>"Lao People's Democratic Republic"
How fucking dumb can one get
>>
>>27518865
They did the exact same thing as Korea, dumbfuck.

it's just when they left korea the norks didn't re invade. But if they did, the US would have helped it's new ally.

The problem with The Vietnams is that the north did re invade, but instead of defending its ally like it normally would have, shitheals back home made it impossible.

The reason there is one Vietnam today is not because the U.S tried and failed, it's because the U.S didn't act at all.
>>
>>27518866
laos was communist before The Korean war even ended, kid.

try again.
>>
>>27518879
So, the US army is wrong about Vietnam because Korea?
>>
>>27518887
try harder.

The US army is wrong because the guy who wrote that was told by his superior to say they were wrong, who was told by his superior and so on till you get sufficiently high.

it has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with politics
>>
>>27518886
>huh, i don't see any other peoples republics in western Asia other than the aforementioned North Korea

Nice try at deflection there, but that's not what you said, Does Cambodia ring a bell? Just stop, it's embarrassing
>>
>>27518899
So, you know better than the US army?

Care to post your credentials?
>>
>>27518816
The US sought to repel the spread of Communism in Vietnam. This objective was a failure.
>>
File: 1441666276414.gif (382KB, 376x280px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1441666276414.gif
382KB, 376x280px
>>27518799
I know /k/ typically focuses on the history once US troops were directly intervening, but the whole idea behind US involvement there was fucked from the beginning. I simply don't understand why hostilities even emerged. The North Vietnamese groups were more than willing to work with the US and its European allies to work something out from the beginning.

Fuck France man, they were the real ass-hats there.
>>
>>27518799
Why can't anonymous people on the internet stop being childish morons who think the North Vietnamese defeated the US with military force?
>>
File: PLA Battleships.jpg (61KB, 490x327px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
PLA Battleships.jpg
61KB, 490x327px
It was a strategic failure on all levels to my eyes.

If the US didn't get involved, the Viets would have used to Communists to remove to French.

If the US got involved as an ally to Vietnam in some alternate history, they would have either used the US to remove the French then turn on the US and kick Americans out too. Then go to war against China.

As fate have it in our world, they simply used Chicoms to kick the US out then they fought the Chicoms soon after.

One way or another, the Vietnamese simply wanted independence. Getting entangled deeply was simply a waste of effort. The US got bloodied and nothing to show for it. Right now, the situation have came full swing and they are looking to ally with the US to remove Chicoms from their part of South China Sea.

If the US played their cards right, I bet even the Vietnamese would be willing to allow Naval Bases in Vietnam if the US can guarantee that the Chinks fuck off. Yes, they hate the Chinks more than Americans. The grudges between Vietnam and China goes back 1000 years. A single war is nothing in comparison.
>>
>>27518918
LBJ deserves the biggest ass-hat of them all for the Gulf of Tonkin sham and continuing the war to fuel his ego.
>>
>>27518967
>If the US didn't get involved, the Viets would have used to Communists to remove to French.

Would this really have been so bad?
>>
>>27518980
You are absolutely correct. I still blame the French for being unbending pricks about the whole thing, and dragging the US into it though.
>>
File: 53611598.jpg (36KB, 221x168px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
53611598.jpg
36KB, 221x168px
>>27518957
>Why can't anonymous people on the internet stop being childish morons who think the North Vietnamese defeated the US with military force?
because your baby lies cant change history.
>>
>>27518995
Prove it then. Or does bombing the enemy so hard they agree to peace count as losing in your book?

And where does this idiotic idea even come from? Why do so many people seem to think Vietnam ended with US forces being kicked out when the VC and NVA had no way of doing that at any point in the conflict?
>>
>>27518902
A literal non argument after getting thoroughly refuted.
>>
>>27518957
It could be argued that the NVA and Viet Cong simply outlasted US forces. As much as people love to spout K/D ratios in 'nam, a lot of those counted as combatants probably weren't combatants.
>>
>>27519011
>surrender
>opponent leaves

That is not outlasting.
>>
>>27519009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam

Government Socialist single-party state

GDP in Vietnam averaged 55.42 USD Billion from 1985 until 2014, reaching an all time high of 186.20 USD Billion in 2014
>>
>>27519018
>then continue to complete original objective
>ARVN was already a beaten skeleton army

Sure sounds like we left on good footing.

Look, I'm not going to argue that typically US forces ended engagements with tactical victories, but the objective was folly to begin with, and one that could not be accomplished with out compromising America's position in the world.
>>
>>27519025
This does not refute the original post you responded to.
>>
>>27519025
No you pathetic troll.

Post proof that the VC and NVA actually defeated US forces in the field.

You cannot lose militarily if your army was no longer present in the theatre of operations and the war had already ended with a peace treaty.

>>27519030
I would call having complete military dominance over your enemy 'a good footing'. Its not fault of the US military that South Vietnam did not get any more support.
>>
>>27518851
The domino effect didn't fail because of US intervention, it failed because the supposed effect was bullshit to begin with.

You might as well be saying that the US promised the end to all ice giants, and achieved its strategic goals, because as we can all see, there are no ice giants around.
>>
>>27519062
You're either willingly ignoring the fact that the US was there to 'assist' the South Vietnamese forces, or you are really so dense as to believe that the US was operating as the primary force by choice. Every military action was focused on making sure the ARVN could fight the fight the US wanted them to fight. The US failed spectacularly at this, both during the intervention and after the withdrawal.
>>
>>27519052
>>27519062
>No you pathetic troll.
don't let us split up hairs..

Vietnam stronger than ever
US lost the war
>>
>>27519010
>claims to be a greater authority than the US army on which wars the US army won

Sure thing boss.
>>
>>27519062
>Post proof that the VC and NVA actually defeated US forces in the field.


happened quite a few times.

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

Nam was a way more balanced war militarily than you'd think. Not really comparable to the USSR in Afghanistan or Iraq or something.

I'm an enthusiast of US military power just as anyone here, but you ain't helping yourself if you`re donald-j-trumping the whole thing. Truth hurts, but willful ignorance is a real dishonesty to the actual vets.
>>
>>27519115

hopefully in like 20yrs from now they will have a well-researched show WORST US PROXY WARRIOR - Iraq vs ARVN vs Saudi Arabia or something. The loser has to go up against those Ukrainian Waffen SS divisions who did nothing well except killing Jews.
>>
>>27519148
>wilful ignorance

The only people displaying that here are the ones like you. I am not even an American, its just a simple fact the NVA and VC never had the ability to force the US out and that they only won after a peace treaty was signed and the American military was gone.

And I was not referring to specific battles, I meant the war in general.
>>
>>27519163
So you disagree with the US army that Vietnam was a strategic failure?
>>
>>27518799
False sense of pride in the own military and the humiliation of defeat. Same thing with communists who nowadays claim that communism never failed by asserting that "real" or "true" communism never existed.
>>
>>27519164
Are you even slightly capable of not missing the point?
>>
>>27519175
You said Vietnam was only lost after the US military was out.

Were you not implying that Vietnam was a strategic success for the US?

Because that's what it seemed like.
>>
>>27518799
>So why can't anonymous people on the internet come to terms with that?

Blind patriotism that extends to pretending things didnt happen as they did
>>
>>27519163
>The only people displaying that here are the ones like you. I am not even an American, its just a simple fact the NVA and VC never had the ability to force the US out and that they only won after a peace treaty was signed and the American military was gone.

A peace treaty they signed so that you could leave, so that they could win.

A peace treaty you signed because you wanted to leave.

A peace treaty you signed knowing that the South didnt stand a chance against the North.

You went 10 rounds and didnt wanna fight no more, you could have gone another 10 but you didnt want to pay the price. So you signed a convenient treaty and left.

If you were serious about meeting the goals you set when the war started, you would have left a "trip wire" force behind like in South Korea in order to prevent the North pulling any shit.

But you didnt, because you had no longer had the will to fight.
>>
Vietnam was a war that Murica was not ready for due to the climate, enemies and the poorly designed M16. If it would have been a straight pissing contest? America would have faired much better.
>>
>>27518799
no many how many threads you make, you'll never be right g00k
>>
>>27519213
>no many how many threads you make, you'll never be right g00k

>so butthurt he can no longer speak english
>>
>>27519208
That is a whole lot of empty rhetoric.
>>
>>27519218
But that's pretty much what the US army is saying when they say Vietnam was a strategic failure.
>>
>>27519190
patriotism meaning anons with a chip on their shoulder against America
>>
>>27518985
From the viewpoint of the US leadership of the time yes apparently. They viewed the whole thing through their Cold War tinted glasses and didn't understand that the Vietnamese were fighting for independence and would've sacrificed every last man, woman and child to achieve this aim. This is why the US never could have won this war, because the only way would have been to genocide the entire people. I have no doubt that the US military would gladly have done so with people like Curtis LeMay. But every sane person already knew that the sentence "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" was completely nuts. And to generalize it to an entire country even more so. The US could never in a million years have found the political will to do so. It was doomed to lose this war from the very start because of the misunderstanding of Vietnamese motivation. Read McNamara's reflections on this whole complex.
>>
>>27519224
Since someone hasn't bothered.

>when they say Vietnam was a strategic failure

[citation needed]
>>
>>27519148
>g2mil

:^)
>>
>>27519239
http://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-28.htm

"in Vietnam the Army experienced tactical success and strategic failure"

Last paragraph.
>>
>>27519128
>don't let us split up hairs
>stop making me defend my narrative

So where are you from, that is not how the splitting hairs phrase is normally said by English speakers.
>>
>>27519230
Why does everyone have to take everything so personally?

Why must I have an agenda to say that the US on the grand geo-political scale lost in Veitnam?

Its simply what happened.

>>27519218
Its not rhetoric, its history.

You wanted out, so you found a way to "withdraw with honor".

If you still wanted to achieve what you set out to do, you would have followed the South Korean model. But you didnt, the US did not want to fight in Veitnam, its literally as simple as that.

The fact that you just so happened to cut all military support and aid (despite what you agreed to with the South prior to withdrawal) only 55 days before Saigon fell is pretty telling.
>>
>>27519271
>Its not rhetoric, its history.

Selective, cherrypicked history to tell a narrative :^)
>>
>>27519277
>Selective, cherrypicked history to tell a narrative :^)
Not him, but why do you think the US army calls Vietnam a strategic failure?
Protip: it's not because the US pullout was a clean one.
>>
>>27519277
are you ever going to post anything meaningful, or are you just going to respond to well set out arguments with buzzwords like 'rhetoric' and 'cherrypicking'

i would like to hear how in you mind the Vietnam war was anything other than a total strategic failure
>>
>>27519252
So you did not actually read what that paragraph said, instead selectively focusing on "strategic failure".
>>
>>27519300
I absolutely read that paragraph. Is there a problem?
>>
>>27519277
So the parts where:
1. The war sits at stale-mate for ~3 years, US public support for the war bottoms out. US presidential hopefuls start campaigning on the premise of curtailing/ending the war
2. The US withdraws and provides guarantees to the South
3. The US withdraws all guarantees
4. Saigon falls

Something I am missing?
>>
>>27519290
>i would like to hear how in you mind the Vietnam war was anything other than a total strategic failure

Because you have not spent any time looking at the strategic picture, even simple things like how the Soviet Union spent more money on the war than the United States did.

But hey the 'rhetoric' and 'cherrypicking' are just me using buzzwords and not you pushing a narrative :^)
>>
>>27519210
>poorly designed M16
It was well designed. The Army ruined it by changing the powder. Read the "Report of the Special Subcommittee on the M-16 Rifle Program" from 1967.
>>
>>27519324
>how the Soviet Union spent more money on the war than the United States did.

citations please
>>
>>27519311
A perfect example of cherrypicking, no reference to the Paris Peace Accords at all.
>>
>>27519326
he got you
>>
>>27519334
>no reference to the Paris Peace Accords at all
and what from the peace accords have i failed to mention?

Shall we hear what Kissinger said about the Accords (referring to the South Veitnamese presidents protests against them)

"I also think that Thieu is right, that our terms will eventually destroy him." - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/150424#sthash.u9ztHtrv.dpuf

Keep on coming troll, I got nothing better to do today.
>>
>>27519287
Its because democrats then fucked everything up with Southvietnam.
>>
>>27519362
Actually, 'twas Nixon whom thrust the first dagger

Democrats then came and set fire to the corpse
>>
>>27519350
>and what from the peace accords have i failed to mention?

That they existed at all and what significance they had for all parties.

Nah gotta push that narrative, anyone who calls you on it is just a troll :^)
>>
>>27519398
>Nah gotta push that narrative
Yeah, stupid US army thinking they lost a war while I keep saying they won instead.
>>
>>27519398
>That they existed at all and what significance they had for all parties.
The significance is that they allowed the US to withdraw knowing full well that if they did the South would fall. As I mentioned in my response regarding the accords.

Are you even reading my posts or is "cherry picked" and "narrative" all you have in your inventory today?
>>
>>27519338
damn. I knew it
>>
One thing I don't get is how South Vietnamese gets money, supplies, and expensive toys from the US, and they get the American army itself to come in and do much of the work for them, and then they still lose to a bunch of rice farmers armed with AKs.

Well, it happened again in Iraq. American support doesn't always mean victory.
>>
>butthurt about the wars they won.
>denial and more butthurt about the wars they actually lost.
>>27519437
That is typical amerifat behaviour these days unfortunately.
>>
>>27519466
Communist forces had the support of the people and were fighting for an ideology of hope (kek)

American civilians and soldiers alike having serious doubts about the validity of the war also decreased morale and helped the U.S. withdrawal
>>
>>27519478
Not even talking about the American tactical performance. How did South Vietnam shit the bed so hard when America was giving them free shit and "you win a battle" cards for many years?
>>
>>27519466
>and then they still lose to a bunch of rice farmers armed with AKs.

South Veit government was corrupt and incompetant, lead by men who were so fearfull of political considerations that most of the army's officer corps were full of men chosen for political considerations.

While corruption was such that any money set aside for the actual people of Veitnam was squandered, meaning that the average guy in the street had no inclination to fight for the government - this is reflected by the trully staggering desertion rate in the ARVN and the fact that the govt had to literally press-gang people into service.

Then you take the fact that the US was trying to teach a bunch of rice farmers how to operate complex machinery and a generally very technical way of fighting which they struggled to grasp and cope with.

Then you take the fact that US trainers and advisors usually lead and conducted operations themselves (effectivly replacing the ARVN officer corps) so that when they left, the officers (generally) had no idea what they were doing.

The ARVN had some pretty badass units who fought to the death right up to the end (their rangers and marines), but generally their army was full og guys who didnt want to be there, had no idea what they were doing there and were gone as soon as the oppertunity presented itself.
>>
>>27519466
>South Vietnamese
There was no real thing as South Vietnam. The leadership was not accepted by the people so it's no wonder the support for unification was high.
The US should have supported Ho Chi Minh from the beginning in his struggle for independence.
They would have an allied leftist country in the region which would have provided a nice opposition to China and Russia.
>>
>>27519491
Did their marines and rangers really get annihilated?

>do your best to protect your "country"
>get shot for it while the cowards who lost the war bugged out

That would suck.
>>
Only edgy teenage shitlords that still believe their college professors think that Vietnam was a loss for the US military.
>>
>>27519531
It was a loss for the country. War is done for political purposes, not just to see who can kill the most guys. If the political aims are not met, the war is lost, even if the army manages to dominate the enemy. "Military victory" is meaningless, because the military exists to serve political aims.

Or to put it in a simpler way your idiot teenage ass might understand: in war, a better k/d ratio than the other guys doesn't mean you automatically win.
>>
>>27519554

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are the idiot.

I'll walk you through this with baby steps. First, please define what it means for a country to be "at war."
>>
>>27519466
They simply had no will to win.
The North did.
>>
>>27519520
It varies from unit to unit, their rangers were the ones who did most of the ss-style "fight to the last" shit.

Yeah, it must have really really sucked.
>>
>>27519558
"War is the continuation of politics with different means"
>>
>>27519558
>Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are the idiot.
>I'll walk you through this with baby steps. First, please define what it means for a country to be "at war."

Dont come here with demands.

Provide a counter argument or fuck off.
>>
>>27519570

That's beautiful but it's not a definition.

I'll ask again, how do you define what "at war" means? How about, its military is actively engaged with an enemy X, and thus it at war with X.

>>27519576

I'm sorry that you have to be babied to the truth. Here, I'll do it for you. See my definition of war above.

Now what is a war goal? It is the strategic/political objective of the war. What was the war goal in Vietnam?
a) To preserve the independence of South Vietnam
b) To end American involvement with a peace treaty

Now, when the war ended, both of those goals were met. US involvement ended in 72 and the Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 73, officially ending U.S. involvement in the war. At that time, the war goals were met.
a) South Vietnam was still independent
b) A peace treaty was signed

Saigon, of course, didn't fall until April 1975, years after the war had ended for the US.

Thus, the US completely met its war goals. There is no way you can dispute this. Unless you are making the novel and absurd claim that a war can be lost N amount of years after it ended. Of course, you can't define N because you're subjectively talking out of your ass. It would be like if the US removed all military from South Korea and in 2017 the North invaded and won, to you, that would mean that the Korean war in the 1950s was a "loss." Which is absurd, and you know it.

Or in another example, WWI was a French loss because they were taken over by Germany 20 years later.

Anyways, the US met its war goals when the war was over, which equals victory. End of story.
>>
>>27519610
US army:
>"Vietnam was a strategic failure"

anon:
>"words words words autism words semantics goalpostmovements words autism words whatiswaranywayreallyamiright words words words etc."

What are you doing with your life?
>>
>>27519622

You didn't disprove anything that I said.
>>
>>27519625
The US army did that for me.
>>
>>27519610
For the 1,000,000th time, the Paris Peace Accords were nothing less than a surrender from the US. If the Communists invaded SK a second time after 1953 the US would have intervened again, this was not the case with Vietnam. The US had no means whatsoever to enforce the deal and everyone knew it. It was a convenient way to withdraw while saving some face.
>>
>>27519625
Not him but you are arguing that a kid who said "fuck you guys I'm taking my ball and going home" won the kickball tournament.
>>
>>27519633

For the 1,000,000th time, you're wrong. North Vietnam NEEDED the US to leave because they were getting their ass pounded and would never succeed with US forces there.

>>27519630

No, to put it in your terms, the US army just spewed wordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswordswords

Also
[citation needed]

Fuck brain. Where are you from anyways?
>>
>>27519610
>To end American involvement with a peace treaty
This was not a strategic objective at the beginning of the war. The objective was to defeat the NVA, not to fight until a peace treaty could be signed.
>>
>>27519652
>[citation needed]
See >>27519252

The US army officially labels the Vietnam war a "strategic failure".

None of your autismal bullshit will change that.

And it's not like the US army is alone in labeling Vietnam a failure:

>"in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."
-Henry Kissinger (then secretary of state)

>"the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."
-Robert McNamara (then secretary of defense)

>"until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous"
-Maxwell Taylor (general and one of THE men behind the Vietnam war, talking about Vietnam in hindsight)
>>
>>27519649

But that analogy doesn't work because winning a kickball game in no way relates to the war goals of the US in Vietnam, which were achieved.

It's more like saying the US was protecting person B from person A in a fight, but the US wasn't actually trying to knock out A, they just wanted to protect B. The whole time saying "look, A, if you'll just stop fighting I'll leave." And then A said okay I'm tired of getting my face punched in, they shook hands, and the US left. And then a while later person A goes and beats up person B when the US isn't around.
>>
>>27519659

Holy shit will you stop picking random quotes from people and think for yourself.

THE US ACHIEVED ITS WAR GOALS AT THE CESSATION OF THE WAR

What is so hard for you to understand about that?

By the way, where are you from? You ignored that.
>>
>>27519668
>THE US ACHIEVED ITS WAR GOALS AT THE CESSATION OF THE WAR

Then why do the US army and the main architects of the Vietnam war all agree that Vietnam was a failure?
>>
>>27519665
Why would anyone in that situation not knock out A?

When has the US ever tried to defend its allies by not neutralizing the hostile force? Gulf War and Korean War certainly don't count.
>>
>>27519674

>appeal to authority

Hey idiot, random quotes out of context mean nothing.

Argue for yourself or shut the fuck up.

Also, stop ignoring the question, where are you from?
>>
>>27519668
>stop picking random quotes from people and think for yourself

In other words:
>stop listening to the people who were actually behind the war, and listen to an anonymous shithead instead!
>>
>>27518799
Alright. But why keep making it sound like DC was overrun by NVA troops and president Ford was beheaded?
>>
>>27519680
>US army:
"Vietnam was a strategic failure."

>anonymous:
"The US totally won Vietnam."

This is not even an appeal to authority.

This is you telling me earth has no gravity, and then saying Newton is wrong and I'm appealing to his authority.
>>
>>27519652
Are you going to actually explain why I'm wrong? I'm not. Everyone knew the North was going to attack the South again, and everyone knew the US couldn't do a thing about it with 90% of the country against war.
>>
>>27519679

>Why would anyone in that situation not knock out A?

Because a) liberals and b) fear of Chinese involvement like Korea.

>When has the US ever tried to defend its allies by not neutralizing the hostile force?

In Vietnam, for one. It was not an offensive war. Surely you knew this, right? Sadly I don't think any of you retards actually know anything about the war.

>>27519681

See: >>27519680

Debate for yourselves and stop copy and pasting random quotes with no context. Clearly none of you foreign idiots know the slightest thing about the war besides your memes.

Here's a book, maybe some of you will take the time to read it and get educated.
>>
>>27519687
Nobody's making it sound like that.
>>
>>27519689

That is actually the literal definition of appeal to authority.

And yes, if you can't explain to me what gravity is yourself then you a fucking retard.

So yes, you are a fucking retard.
>>
>>27519692
>stop listening to the US army and the people behind the Vietnam war, and listen to me instead!

No.
>>
>>27519692
Not fighting an offensive war is one thing but not being able to keep the said country secure is another.
>>
>>27519690

The US left with their war goals achieved. What more do I need to tell you?

>>27519699

>appeal to authority

You autists are just trolling because you have absolutely nothing substantive to add.
>>
>>27519697
>>27519705
>appeal to authority

Not really.
The US army fought Vietnam, and they say it was a failure.
Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, ... designed and led the Vietnam war, and they say it was a failure.

I'm looking at the facts (20 years of fighting completely undone in under 2 years, communists overran Vietnam), and I have to agree with them.
>>
>>27519704

uh, what? The VC was nearly wiped out and the NVA was supremely fucked by 1972. They absolutely needed the US to leave before they were completely wrecked. Even they had manpower issues.

Like I said, the US was the big friend helping the little friend in a fight but didn't want to knock out the other person for fear of being expelled by the school, if you want that analogy.
>>
>>27519714

>The US army fought Vietnam, and they say it was a failure.
>Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, ... designed and led the Vietnam war, and they say it was a failure.

Pic related.

>I'm looking at the facts (20 years of fighting completely undone in under 2 years, communists overran Vietnam), and I have to agree with them.

After the war had ended for the US. What can't you understand about that? You can't lose a war that's already over.
>>
>>27519705
Are you actually going to debate my points or just repeat the same nonsense like a broken record?
>>
>>27519719
Well they're bound to know more about the Vietnam war than you. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>27519723

What points? The Vietnam War was over for America in 1972.
>>
>>27519715
So instead they let the other person lick his wounds, get up, kick the shit out of the little guy, and render all previous protection efforts meaningless.

you know if America was a mercenary or hired security guard with no relations to its clients beyond a paycheck (to America) I would buy that, but it isn't.
>>
>>27519694
Then why do these threads keep doing
>America lost Vietnam
>see that burger, it's failure
>you fail forever
>you lost, let me rub it in your face
>doesn't matter if Vietnam likes you now
>American will never win
>>
>>27519729
>The Vietnam War was over for America in 1972.
Then why did the US military consider Vietnam a failure?
>>
>>27519727

No.

>appeal to authority

Just stop. It's clear that you yourself know very little or nothing.
>>
>>27519738
So you are saying that you know more about the war than they (Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor) do?
>>
File: 1338885424500.jpg (44KB, 480x480px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1338885424500.jpg
44KB, 480x480px
>>27519738
>No.
The US army, Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, ... don't know more about the Vietnam war than you?
>>
>>27519729
Because the US surrendered.
>>
File: 1351633034940.jpg (33KB, 491x404px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1351633034940.jpg
33KB, 491x404px
>>27519746

>Because the US surrendered.
>>
>>27519742
>>27519744
>>27519736

Well, seeing as I'm dealing with a bunch of foreign idiots (likely yuros) who actually know nothing substantive about the war and keep spouting
>muh authority

rather than actually offering any sort of coherent substance, I'm out and off to do more productive things. Congrats trolls, you've won this one. Don't have the patience this morning to continue.
>>
>>27519749
I explained this twice before in the thread. You never bothered to refute my argument, preferring to repeat "we won." over and over.
>>
>>27519753
>I'm dealing with a bunch of foreign idiots
The US army, Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, ... are foreign idiots?
>>
>>27519746
>>27519749

Yeah, it was a momentous day when Washington DC fell to the Viet Minh and Ho Chi Minh was installed as President.

Who would have thought that the Vietnamese could not only fight off the US military in Vietnam; but successfully mount a full scale invasion of the US mainland.
>>
>>27519753
I sure as fuck would trust Bob on that one if Bob was a renowned genetic engineer who publicly revealed his work on attaching functional wings to pigs.
>>
>>27519753
Answer the question: do you really think you know more about the Vietnam war than the US army, Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, ... ?
>>
>>27519760
What the he'll are you going on about? The US went to war with the goal of saving South Vietnam. Public opinion forced the government to sign a "peace treaty" they had no authority to enforce in 1973. It was a surrender.
>>
>>27519753
>the people behind the Vietnam war saying Vietnam was a failure = "Bob" saying pigs can fly
Yeah nah.
>>
Anyways on the topic of Sorley's book:

>Mr Sorley's line, however, refers to the year 1970, when Viet Cong guerrilla activity had fallen to an extremely low level and Americans found themselves free to travel to areas of the countryside that had previously been off-limits. (That Mr Sorley identifies the ability of American soldiers to travel freely with "winning the war" is revealing.) Mr Sorley's argument is that to the extent that the Vietnam War was a "people's war" in the South, the Communist insurgency was defeated after the failed Tet offensive through intelligent counterinsurgency techniques; the South ultimately lost not to a people's war, but to a regular invasion by North Vietnamese main forces. Here is one way to express the problem with Mr Sorley's thesis: a year after he contends "the war was won", the South Vietnamese army (ARVN) attempted to strike into Laos to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail that was resupplying North Vietnamese army (NVA) forces still stationed inside southern territory. The South Vietnamese were annihilated, in part because their command structure remained riddled with Communist sympathisers who had given away the timing of the operation, and in part because South Vietnamese commanders who derived political power from the strength of their units declined to risk their troops to rescue rival commanders. (For more on this, a recommendation for the Pentagon's reading list: Andrew Wiest's "Vietnam's Forgotten Army".)
>>
Some South Vietnamese units fought bravely. For their trouble, they ended up dead, or incarcerated as POWs in the North. After three years of American "Vietnamisation" of the war, and despite being furnished by their American patrons with one of the world's largest and best-equipped armies and air forces, the ARVN remained unable to clear its own territory of NVA units or to mount a credible attack against their supply lines. The South Vietnamese government remained weak, corrupt, factionalised, and essentially fictive, and you cannot have a real army without a real government.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/a_better_war_but_not_good_enou
>>
>More importantly, the South Vietnamese government was a fictive, corrupt shell not because America had not given it enough aid, but in part because we had given it too much. Mr Sorley is generally weakest of all when he writes about the South Vietnamese government; in his Wall Street Journal op-ed he claims that Nguyen Van Thieu, South Vietnam's last in a long line of scheming generals-turned-weak-dictators,

> took the courageous step of organizing and arming a People's Self-Defense Force to back up localized defense forces that defended their home provinces. Thieu's own view, validated by the results, was that "the government had to rest upon the support of the people, and it had little validity if it did not dare to arm them."

>This is an interesting view for someone who stole the 1967 election with widespread ballot-stuffing and then threw one of his rivals into jail for accusing him of it, who bought the votes of representatives on the floor of parliament for anywhere from $350 to $1800 a pop, who repeatedly refused to send his most loyal divisions into combat against the NVA because he needed them in case of a coup by his own generals, and who ultimately fled the country with its entire gold reserves stuffed into his suitcases, leaving his braver subordinates to face the NVA tanks. The words Mr Sorley ascribes to Mr Thieu were clearly placed in his mouth by American COIN proponents, and for Mr Sorley to pretend that they represent Mr Thieu's own views is poor history.
>>
>>27518967

>If the US played their cards right, I bet even the Vietnamese would be willing to allow Naval Bases in Vietnam if the US can guarantee that the Chinks fuck off. Yes, they hate the Chinks more than Americans. The grudges between Vietnam and China goes back 1000 years. A single war is nothing in comparison.

This is exactly what's happening though. The TPP is designed to benefit Vietnam at the expense of China and as a result the USN would be allowed to station "antipiracy" personnel in Vietnam to "protect trade"
>>
>>27519665
> person A goes and beats up person B when the US isn't around
The US know that B can't hold up against A, A will not stop beating B, and still go away. How is that successful in protecting B?
>>
>>27519983
Not to mention that it was no secret that you could never trust communists to keep their word if they had the upper hand. If the goal was to stop the spread of communism, it failed miserably.
>>
>>27518823

We lost, plain and simple. America's radical left has always been the most dangerous threat to it.
>>
>>27519983
Actually, B was beating the shit out of A due to haveing a combined arms mechanized force. The South was beating the north, until the arab oil crisis happened.

They could not feed their tanks or planes, and thus, were put on the NVAs level of fighting, light infantry, where they got beat up.
>>
Because it was a complete tactical success, and stupid people don't know the difference between strategy and tactics.

We won every single major engagement, and crippled both the NVA and the NLF. But in the end it didn't matter, because the American public turned against the war, and North Vietnam succeeded in their goals.

Vietnam was the first televised war, and unlike World War II, nothing was white washed for propaganda purposes. Thus, the American public saw war as it truly is for the first time since the Civil War. And they immediately turned against it. That war wasn't lost in Vietnam. It was lost in America.
>>
File: 1442523234896.png (234KB, 500x400px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1442523234896.png
234KB, 500x400px
>>27518916
And that's exactly what they did. Everything that happened after that has nothing to do with the war itself. Isn't that what you said?
>>
>>27520270
>And that's exactly what they did.
That's not what "they" are saying though.
US military and political leaders all agree Vietnam was a failure.
>>
File: 1444106142762.jpg (11KB, 159x212px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1444106142762.jpg
11KB, 159x212px
>>27518902
>the army is smart
>ucp exists
>stryker is in service
>spent dosh testing a GL with underbarrel
carbine
>millions lost all the time on pointless pet projects like the aforementioned.
>>
>>27519753
>>
>>27520328
You'll give the army enough credit to be able to know when it lost or won wars though right?
>>
File: 1443339552178.jpg (20KB, 480x476px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1443339552178.jpg
20KB, 480x476px
>>27520327
Then they're almost as wrong as you. The US stopped the spread of communism DURING the Vietnam War. Anything that happened after the US pulled out has nothing to do with the Vietnam War. Also, the Vietnamese government itself stated that the war was a stalemate, dumbass. But I'm sure you'll just ignore facts in front of your face.
>>
>>27520380
>Then they're almost as wrong as you.
... and Kissinger, and McNamara, and Taylor, etc.

Pretty much anyone who had anything to do with planning and leading the Vietnam war.
>>
>>27520357
The Army thinks it's done good in Afghanistan.

So no.
>>
>>27520389
Except for Vietnam and its entire government who said it was a draw at best. Please learn to read.
>>
>>27520393
Afghanistan is still ongoing though.
They're not going to badmouth an ongoing conflict they're in.

And in fact, Afghanistan is going to be exactly like Vietnam: as soon as the US and its allies leave, the Taliban will simply take over again.
>>
>>27520418
>Except for Vietnam and its entire government who said it was a draw at best.
Source?
>>
>>27518816
Theu fucked nearly all the objectives after the war. As a policy, the war was a failure.
>>
File: 1435924646810.jpg (46KB, 591x960px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1435924646810.jpg
46KB, 591x960px
>>27520425
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/youth-vietnam-war-fall-saigon/391769/ Just about everyone in Vietnam loves America and either doesn't give a shit about the war or thinks it was a draw. Please self immolate.
>>
>>27519239
Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire
>>
>>27518799
We should have this thread every day. Oh wait...
>>
>>27520538
Show me where.
Couldn't find "stalemate" or "draw".

Also, these are the sentiments today, when "communist" China is Vietnam's enemy and the US their ally.

Meanwhile, the US army and the main architects of Vietnam all agree that the Vietnam war was a failure.
>>
>>27520583
So US generals are retarded. What else is new? The United States signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam in 1973. The north invaded the south in 1975, 2 years after surrendering to the US. It's like if your friend is being abused by her husband so you beat the shit out of him, and when you leave he rapes your friend while pretending he won the fight.
>>
>>27520646
>So US generals are retarded.
You're much smarter aren't you?

Those US military and political leaders are just saying they lost the war they orchestrated and led to make themselves look good.
>>
>>27518799
Because OP, sometimes a father doesn't love his son enough and that son turns into a hostile autistic faggot, seeking attention by harassing anonymous users on an image board.
>>
>>27520667
They're also wrong. You can't lose something you're not doing. We were no longer fighting the north when they invaded the south. That's like saying France won the French and Indian war because they got back some of their lost land years after the end of the war.
>>
>>27520711
>They're also wrong.
Damn son, you're on fire.
You know better than everyone, including the people who know better than you!
>>
File: 1428273524251.gif (132KB, 350x350px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1428273524251.gif
132KB, 350x350px
Did you just give up, or did you run out of things that agreed with your dumb shit? Because you obviously didn't even put effort into a counter argument, or even provide one. Please end your life.
>>
>>27520787
Your sole argument is "I know better than the US military and political leaders who led the Vietnam war".

You are wrong.
>>
File: Roman Tactics.jpg (56KB, 893x689px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Roman Tactics.jpg
56KB, 893x689px
>>27519466
Read a book called "The Sling and the Stone".
4GW and how to fight it has been poorly understood and executed by most nation-state actors. It's not an issue of technology or production. It is a political game.
>>
>>27520804
No. My main argument is that you can't lose a war you're not fighting. Your main argument is the opposite, which is fucking stupid. If Obama said the earth was flat, would you believe him because he's in a position of power? Of course not. So why would you believe something as illogical as losing a war you weren't in because someone in a position of power said so? That's like saying East Germany lost the Korean war because an ally of it lost, even though Germany had nothing to do with that conflict.
>>
>>27520854
>My main argument is that you can't lose a war you're not fighting.
And the US military and political leaders who led the Vietnam war obviously disagree with you.

Not really surprising since it's a dumbass argument.
>>
>>27520878
Just because they looked at it doesn't mean they're right. You physically can't lose a war that you're not fighting. Let's say through some miracle, Germany convinces America and Russia to lay down their arms and go home in the second world war. 2 years later, the US invades Japan, who is still fighting. Would you then say Germany lost? Of course not. The north achieved their goal for victory after surrendering to the US. The US had nothing to do with what happened after that surrender. What part of this do you refuse to understand?
>>
>>27520928
>Just because they looked at it doesn't mean they're right.
They "looked" at it?
The people who orchestrated, led, and finished the Vietnam war "looked" at it?
>>
>>27520939
The people who led the war were also wrong. We have established this. Please acknowledge the rest of what I typed.
>>
>>27520966
>The people who led the war were also wrong.
You are very smart. Wow.
You know more about the Vietnam war than the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.
>>
>>27520972
I obviously know more than you, judging by your inability to acknowledge the rest of what I typed. You know you're wrong, you just won't say it.
>>
>>27519326
Also, didn't they fuck up by removing full-auto capabilities early on? Would the war have played out differently if the standard M-16 had been full-auto?
>>
>>27520991
>I obviously know more than you
Oh no no no, this is not about me.

YOU are claiming YOU know more about the Vietnam war than the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.

You really don't though.
>>
>>27518816

anyone who thinks the US government and military didnt know exactly what was going to happen after they pulled out is totally delusional and not worth engaging, even on a south vietnamese prostitution and rice cooking forum

i mean this is 'Stalin did nothing wrong' vatnik level delusion
>>
>>27520992
>Also, didn't they fuck up by removing full-auto capabilities early on?
No, but apart from the powder change they used the aluminum magazines that were invented as throw away type magazines for one time use over and over. These quickly got bent lips from overuse which caused feeding errors and thus further stoppages.
>>
>>27521002
Again, I obviously do. The US army VASTLY and laughably outclassed the viet cong. Even Vietnam says the US won tactically. The US made the north surrender. After leaving because of victory, the US left the south undefended. The north attacked the south successfully for the first time because the US had won and gone home. This is a fact. Please just give up, you have lost.
>>
>>27521080
>I know more about the Vietnam war than the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.

No, you really don't.
>>
>>27521098
>I pretend I can argue without any actual argument
No you can't.
>>
>>27521108
What's to argue?
The facts are all here, plain for everyone to see.

You're just using those facts to come to an obviously deluded conclusion.
As evidenced by the fact that the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished the Vietnam war thoroughly disagree with you.
>>
File: wzrfk.jpg (25KB, 500x427px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
wzrfk.jpg
25KB, 500x427px
>>27521124
Yes, the facts are here. The north surrendered to the US and invaded the south when the victorious Americans went home.
>>
>>27521080
I've had this argumenr with people before,its pointless to argue with them because they cant understand the fact that the peace treaty where north vietnam conceeded defeat due to being bombed back into the stone age was a thing. They refuse the idea that usa's part in the contlict ended in 1973 under a north vietnamese defeat and that the second conflict which the nva spent 2 years recieving aid and trainig from china and ussr was a almost separate conflict due to a peace treaty being signed with usa 2 years prior
>>
>>27521156
The people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished the Vietnam war thoroughly disagree with you.

You don't know more about the Vietnam war than the politicians who orchestrated it or the generals who led it.
>>
>>27521159
Also sorry for the shitty spelling,posting from my phone
>>
>>27521159
>its pointless to argue with them
Yes, it is VERY pointless to argue about the Vietnam war with the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.
>>
>>27521159
Exactly. The north surrendered. Why do people not get this?
>>
>>27521196
What he was getting at is it's pointless to argue with an autist who refuses to look facts in the face.
>>
>>27521196
Mate the reason they said it was a strategic defeat is because in their minds the only goal was to protect south vietnam, something that the democrats sabotaged by the way after the nva restarted hostilities in 1975.

I have one question for you buddy, if a nation signs a peace treaty due to severe military losses does that not end that specific conflict?
>>
>>27519610
yes because wars often start with the end game being entitled "conclude a vague and ambiguous truce with the enemy"

The goal was to prop of the South

The US failed.

The peace-accords were nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to save face. Kissinger and Nixon were not only aware of this but have said QUOTABLE words to this effect.

The achievement of strategic goals do not become void by the passing of time, you either achieve them or you do not. The US failed to achieve ANY of its goals. This is completely undeniable.
>>
>>27521213
You're right, he really is an autist for trying to claim he knows more about the Vietnam war than the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.

>>27521199
>The north surrendered. Why do people not get this?
Yeah, why don't Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, the US army just get that the North surrendered and the US won?
>>
>>27519705
>The US left with their war goals achieved.

Thats like saying you won a game by quoting the half time score.
>>
>>27521227
>because in their minds the only goal was to protect south vietnam
Which it was.
>>
>>27521199
Exactly
>>
>>27521232
Mate is the concept of the 1975 invasion of south vietnam being a separate conflict due to the previous one being concluded in a peace treaty so alien to you?
>>
>>27519719
>citations are now appeals to authority

Someone needs a tertiary education

>>27519760
Pretty momentous day when your embassy was abandoned
>>
>>27521176
The same point said several times doesn't make it right. You're fucking stupid if you think somebody 50 years in the future with access to everything about the subject matter knows less than some guy with stars on his hat that stared at a map for a few minutes.
>>
>>27518799
>muh honor
>muh sacrifice
>muh service

same old reasons
>>
>>27520106
erm no.

The South fell apart when the US stopped paying the bills.

And the final stages of the war were fully conventional
>>
>>27521252
Are you asking me, or the people who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished the Vietnam war?

>>27521272
Yeah, an internet warrior is SO much smarter than the actual political and military leaders behind the Vietnam war!

Tell me, what information do you have that they didn't have?
>>
>>27521252
It is to me. USA signing some facing saving bullshit treaty to leave with its pride intact doesn't change the fact that they got their asses handed to them and left with their tale behind their legs.
>>
>>27521238
If you're only playing for 30 minutes and som3one else takes over at halftime you could say you won your 30 minute round
>>
>>27520238
holy fuck

this.

Well said anon
>>
>>27521228
The US propped up the south successfully. The north signed a peace treaty and surrendered to the US. AFTER that war ended, the north attacked the south. Please learn to read, and please self-immolate.
>>
>>27521292
Um, the fucking internet, a collection of all of mankind's knowledge pooled together and easily accessible.
>>
>>27521080
>won and gone

No, gave in during ongoing operations.

The US was fully aware that their withdrawal would lead to the fall of the South... they were aware of this long before the Peace Accords.

They were quite literally throwing in the towel, justifiablty so, the South was not sustainable.

But lets not go around bandying ludicrous notions
>>
>>27521313
Right, so what information do you have that the US military and political leaders didn't have?
>>
>>27518799
well seeing as how the commies took over afterwords, I'd say we lost.
numbers say we won in casualties, supposedly.
>>
>>27521294
Mate the north vietnam was forced into signing a peace treaty due to the heavy american bombing campaign of their country
>>
People never seem to mention the oil embargo South Vietnam was under at that time. So not only did the Democrats in Washington slash money given to SV at that time from Billions to a couple Million, they couldn't even get fuel to run their fighting vehicles let alone their economy.
>>
JUST STOP ALREADY! We get it. One person here is the retarded op, and the other is someone using basic argument who can rationally use them. Just stop and let this shitty thread die already.
>>
>>27521300
>he US propped up the south successfully. The north signed a peace treaty and surrendered to the US. AFTER that war ended, the north attacked the south. Please learn to read, and please self-immolate.

That is in no way at all what happened.

The US needed to withdraw, so they found a way out and the North obliged.

Would you like some reading on the topic?
>>
>>27521294
But the north surrendered. They gave up after being bombed into the stone age.
>>
>>27521331
South Vietnam was forced into signing the peace treaty because the US wanted out, and fast.
>>
>>27518839
Inb4 retards like you spout your mouth off when you have no idea the effect the war had on Vietnam and its draw closer and closer to capitalism
>>
>>27521331
>forced
The bombing campaign was a joke. They didn't give a shit about their mud huts being blown up, they signed the X on the dotted line and let the yanks leave. No one for a second thought that the conflict was finished (besides you of course).
>>
>>27521342
This. As much as I enjoy watching yuropoors/autistOPs run into their playpen walls repeatedly, the yuropoor/autistOP has successfully lost his arguments multiple times, and through resorting to hilarious parroting of the same logical fallacy has lost any chance of my support. The thread has served its purpose.
>>
>>27521389
>i know better than the US political and military leadership

You really don't though.
>>
>>27521360
A joke? MILLIONS were killed in these bombing runs. Their entire country was annihilated by napalm. Their children were mutated horribly by agent Orange bombs. The bombings were horrible and completely destroyed Vietnam's will to fight.
>>
>>27521397
Just shut up already. You might as well copy paste the same message for what you've been doing. Just let the thread die.
>>
>>27518850
Failure and defeat are different things. Vietnam was a colossal political and military failure. For North Vietnam, it was a clear success and victory.

It wasn't a defeat for us in that we weren't beaten militarily, but I think we could look at it as a forfeiture.
>>
>>27521389
Actually norwegian europoor here arguing against the muh generals autist,
Not all of us are idiots that aren't capable of reasonable thought fortunately
>>
>>27521296
Not if you arrived with the intention of winning the game.

To continue with the sports analogy what happened is this:

>Team A sucks and is going to get reemed
>This is unacceptable for.. Team USA
>Team USA plays for team A instead
>After a very brutal half, team A is marginally ahead, but it has cost them dearly with many star players injured, team USA's fans dont want team USA while furthermore team USA doesnt want to play because team USA just figured out that the second half has been extended by 20-30 years.
>The rival team does not want to play as well, knowing that another brutal 20-30 years of being smashed into the ground is ahead of it
>Team USA and the rival team come to an agreement to call it a draw (but the pundits rate it was a complete tactical victory for team USA) and that the rival team will never again try to play team A. Team USA is now able to gracefully leave the arena with pride intact
>Second half commences
>yet holy shit, the rivals are lining up on the feild with team USA nowhere in sight
>team A steps up to face them
>10min later
>match is called because rival team has murdered team A
>>
>>27519140

That fallacy is called an "Appeal to authority", anon.
>>
>>27521409
>You might as well copy paste the same message
Well you still seem to think you know more about the Vietnam war than the political and military leaders who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.

You really REALLY don't.
>>
>>27521406

>MILLIONS

Source: Your ass.

No, it was a joke and accomplished nothing. Try picking up a book or two.
>>
>>27521406

You fail to understand that the /k/ edgemeisters consider mass murder to be amusing and sexually arousing.
>>
>>27521427
I'm not even that same guy. You're just copy pasting the same "YOU REALLY DON'T!" again and again and again.
>>
>>27521360
They very much cared about the dotted line and the bombing.

They said they would never acknowledge South Vietnam sovereignty, and they did.

The bombing fucked the ho chi min trail, and made it impassible, starving the front line.

This was not PGMs on mud huts, the us strategically bombed the NVA in linebacker one and two. Arclight runs are no joke
>>
>>27521423
Not a fallacy chum.

The facts are the facts.

Even the people behind the Vietnam war concede that it was a failure based on the facts.

If you use those same facts to come to an opposite conclusion, that just means you're clearly deluded.

Because you simply do not know more about the Vietnam war than the political and military leaders who orchestrated, led, fought, and finished it.

>>27521434
But you really don't know more about Vietnam than the people behind the Vietnam war.
>>
>>27521406
>MILLIONS were killed in these bombing runs
and MILLIONS were born next year
>Their entire country was annihilated by napalm
some stretches of jungle you mean? regrown the next year
>Their children were mutated horribly by agent Orange bombs
yeah, a few of the weak ones to make more room for the strong
>The bombings were horrible and completely destroyed Vietnam's will to fight
until they restarted fighting just as the last choppers were leaving?

stop with this sophistry, it's disgraceful
>>
>>27521438
Well, we can agree that it was a price the north was willing to pay.

All they were really fighting for in the accords with enough wiggle room to justify future campaigns against the south
>>
>>27521442
And would US generals from a single side of the war, know more then the vietnamese soldiers, guerrillas, civilians and generals who fought in country, experiencing just about every side of the war? I thought not faggot.
>>
>>27521418
That's refreshing to see.
>>
>>27521414
Well you can say that the usa wanted out, but the way they achieved that was bombing the north into submission which can't really be said to be a military defeat.


It would be the equivalent of saying you and your buddy beats a guy til he passes out, the day after he wakes up and stabs your friend. You didn't lose the fight but you fucked up in protecting your buddy
>>
>>27521451
>until they restarted fighting just as the last choppers were leaving?

Again, false.

The NVA first spent a year rebuilding the ho chi min trail, while getting the shit kicked out of them by the south.
>>
File: 1434258623768.jpg (31KB, 480x512px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1434258623768.jpg
31KB, 480x512px
>>27518799
>"strategic failure"

If that's another way of saying the liberal media and liberals made the 50k American troops deaths meaningless then yeah.
>>
>>27521326
Knowledge of what happened, as compared to hoping something happens.
>>
>>27521459
What are you trying to tell me?

And you're forgetting that those "US generals from a single side of the war" are saying THEY THEMSELVES failed.

Why would they do that, you think?

>>27521474
The statements from Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, and the US army about the failure of Vietnam were made AFTER the Vietnam war though.
>>
>>27521457
>price the north was willing to pay.

No, we cant because it was not.

The north broke under linebacker two. They walked then came back to the table.

They knew they would never beat the US. They knew they had a bad chance of loseing if they kept it up. They needed the US gone to merely survive.

They regained initive when the arab oil crisis happened.
>>
>>27521478
They were wrong. How many times do I have tell you? The north surrendered to the US and fought a SEPERATE war against the south that didn't involve the US.
>>
>>27521478
That they only have experiences of what their side suffered and no knowledge of what the other side suffered? All the US army generals know is that they were recalled. They know not of the annihilation of any modernity in the Vietnamese peninsula, the several million dead, or the lasting effects of such a horrid war on their homeland.
>>
>>27521482

This isn't just denial.

This is advanced denial.

Just stop. Your argument and straight up factual errors have been torn to shred on multiple occasions and yet you're still going.
>>
>>27521496
I've tried our approach before, its inpossible to convince someone that is this emotionally invested in an argument and hellbent on the usa losing
>>
>>27521510
>straight up factual errors

Ok, then point them out.

This is my 2nd post ITT btw.
>>
>>27521496
>They were wrong.
... says an anonymous keyboard warrior.

>That they only have experiences of what their side suffered and no knowledge of what the other side suffered?
You really think the military and political leaders behind the Vietnam war had no knowledge of the damage suffered by the North Vietnamese?

Lmao dude, holy shit hahaha.
>>
>>27521510
Lol, this is the most Poe's Law tier, ironic posting I've seen in a month.
>>
>>27521516
Says the faggot that refuses to acknowledge that the Vietnamese even fought in the war, and that their opinion is just as valid, if no more so, then the american generals who fought in it.
>>
>>27521510
Spamming muh generals Said we lost is not factually shredding our arguments in any way, the usa slaugtered the north vietnamese and left with a peace treaty due to faltering support at home
>>
>>27521482
Well, your statements about Linebacker effectiveness are open for debate.

With regards to beating the US, they never beleived they could from the start - their objective was allways to bleed them out and make it too costly, just like the frogs.

But where you are categorically wrong is with the oil crises.

It was funding cuts and the eventual end to support programmed for the ARVN that killed them. They lost something like 3 billion USD in 1970's terms (open to correction).

Even the gook president said something along the lines of "give me half the money I can hold only half the country"
>>
>>27521507
>That they only have experiences of what their side suffered and no knowledge of what the other side suffered?
You really think the military and political leaders behind the Vietnam war had no knowledge of the damage suffered by the North Vietnamese?

Lmao dude, holy shit hahaha.
>>
>>27519010
A literal non-answer after getting called on your bullshit.
>>
>>27521531
They have the NUMBERS sure, but they do not know the experience of it. The experience of learning your entire village with your entire family was burnt to the ground and doesn't exist anymore. Of your capital being bombed, of your fellow man killed by something he had no idea was coming, or had the ability to fight back against.
>>
>>27521496
Anon

I am not him.

The point is simply this: It may be TECHNICALLY a separate war, but that separate war met the goals that the US started the first war to meet. And it is only a seperate war because the US wanted out of the first war and left knowing full well that the South could not stand alone.

Hence why Veitnam is considered a geo-political failure.
>>
>>27521521

>Ok, then point them out.

You seem more reasonable than the first guys who tried the PPA argument. I was in this thread a few hours ago, read some of my other posts.

>>27519633
>>27519775
>>
>>27521545
>They have the NUMBERS sure, but they do not know the experience of it.

This is your argument?

The US political and military leaders knew the damage they caused, but now how to FEEL the damage?

Is this your way of saying you were trolling all along?
>>
>>27521568
If you can't figure out how Feeling is tied to the moral of the nation then you're retarded friendo.
>>
>>27521552
If you call it a geopolitical failure I'll agree wholeheartedly (norwegian here) but it was very far from a an american military defeat
>>
File: 1347050949221.jpg (102KB, 600x478px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1347050949221.jpg
102KB, 600x478px
>>27521580
>Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, and the US army are wrong about the Vietnam war because of FEELINGS
>>
>>27521594
no one ever said it was

even retard OP's statements mirror the notion.
>>
>>27521529
>the usa slaugtered the north vietnamese
Having a high kill ratio fighting a 3rd world country is not some crowning achievement.

America failed in all the objectives they set out for themselves, every single search and destroy mission was bunk, training the South Vietnamese was an utter failure, they could never deal with Cambodia and Laos, etc.
>>
>>27521603
They were wrong on a moral level friendo. The vietnamese were a shattered peoples. Tell me with that smug fucking face of yours, that EVERY single relative you had, almost every single friend, and basically everyone you knew, was burned to a crisp, in the matter of ten minutes, that you wouldn't be devastated. That you wouldn't wish for suicide. Go ahead tell me that you goddamn, son of a fucking faggot.
>>
>>27521530
>Well, your statements about Linebacker effectiveness are open for debate.

>Following the success of anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, in March 1968 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson halted bombing operations over the northern portion of the North Vietnam (Operation Rolling Thunder), in order to encourage Hanoi to begin negotiations. Shortly thereafter Hanoi agreed to discuss a complete halt of the bombing...

Then later...

>Nixon ordered the heavy Operation Linebacker II bombings of North Vietnam in December 1972. These operations were also designed to keep North Vietnam at the negotiating table and to prevent it from abandoning negotiations...

They came and stayed at the table directly due to the bombings.

This is not up for debate.

>With regards to beating the US, they never beleived they could from the start - their objective was allways to bleed them out and make it too costly, just like the frogs.

Except thats not what happened at all, the US did not leave or retreat under fire, like the frogs.

>But where you are categorically wrong is with the oil crises.

>The communist leaders had expected that the ceasefire terms would favor their side. But Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid received just before the ceasefire went into effect, began to roll back the Viet Cong.

THEN...

>The oil price shock of October 1973 following the Yom Kippur War in Egypt caused significant damage to the South Vietnamese economy. The Viet Cong resumed offensive operations when the dry season began and by January 1974 it had recaptured the territory it lost during the previous dry season..

>At the start of 1975, the South Vietnamese had three times as much artillery and twice the number of tanks and armored cars as the opposition. They also had 1,400 aircraft and a two-to-one numerical superiority in combat troops over their Communist enemies.[265] However, the rising oil prices meant that much of this could not be used.
>>
>>27521631
>They were wrong on a moral level friendo.
You're not just moving the goalposts, you're making new ones.
>>
>>27521594

>but it was very far from a an american military defeat

You don't need to be routed and on the run to be militarily defeated. When the military fails to meet it's objectives it is defeated.
>>
>>27521615
So from what sources do you claim every search and destroy mission was a failure? Genuinely curious
>>
>>27521639
So you're going to ignore everything I said faggot.
>>
>>27521643
Tell me which North Vietnamese army units they successfully surrounded and destroyed? Not a single one, they always slipped away. They got bodies on the ground but never enough to win the war.
>>
>>27521642
The military met every one of its objectives.

The failure was political.

>>27521560
How can you call the PPA a surrender document for the US when it was all the US wanted.

The idea was to contain the communists. The PPA did exactly that.

>>B....BUT LATER...

Is irrelevent.
>>
>>27521648
You keep saying this like I owe you something.

YOU are the one who keeps ignoring what the actual US military and political leaders said.

>>27521675
>The failure was political.
Then why is the US army officially stating that it suffered strategic failure?
>>
>>27521689
>Then why is the US army officially stating that it suffered strategic failure?

The us army is not a single enity, friend.

The US military was not even in country and has not been for years when it fell.

The US military cannot act unilaterally.
>>
strategic =/= tactical
/k/ = tactical
>>
>>27521643

>So from what sources do you claim every search and destroy mission was a failure?

Can you name any truly successful ones? Starlite, Ia Drang, Junction City. All of them ended in nothing conclusive except for a lot of bodies.
>>
>>27521689
You are the one who only takes in half of the argument. The Vietnamese people themselves, the people whos homeland was the fighting ground of this war, openly say it was a stalemate at worst.
>>
>>27521703
The us military was not in theater nor acting strategically when the south fell.
>>
>>27521633
Those tanks and aircraft were uselessly sitting in warehouses, waiting for repairs because USA stopped sending spare parts.. it wasn't the fucking oil prices.
>>
>>27521675

>The military met every one of its objectives.

They didn't win the war.

>The failure was political.

Don't forget, war is a continuation of politics by other means.
>>
>>27521675

>How can you call the PPA a surrender document for the US when it was all the US wanted.

It was everything the US wanted on paper, the reality was different. Try actually reading my posts.
>>
>>27521733
If the democrats hadn't been anti war and stopped sending aid/refusing to send american air support the south vietnamese would't have lost
>>
>>27521730
>it wasn't the fucking oil prices.

Well every source says it was the oil prices, so super cool opinon?

>They didn't win the war.

They achieved their objectives when they were in theator. They sure as fuck did not lose the war. The idea was a korean situation.

>Don't forget, war is a continuation of politics by other means.

Of course, but political failure is not a military one.
>>
>>27521741
>the reality was different

The reality happened after the fact and is subect to hindsight.
>>
>>27521753

Try getting your history from something besides a Prager University video. Some ammunition shipments weren't going to save South Vietnam, if anyone was really dedicated to stopping the North sending troops would've still been an option, but it wasn't.
>>
>>27521771
2nd part was for

>>27521733
>>
>>27521700
What the fuck are you even saying?

>>27521710
>The Vietnamese people themselves, the people whos homeland was the fighting ground of this war, openly say it was a stalemate at worst.
Because they turned capitalistic, and China is once again their mortal enemy.

You'll still find plenty of Vietnamese who still resent the US too, don't you fret.
>>
>>27521804
>What the fuck are you even saying?

The us army is not a single enity, friend. They are not a hive mind, does not speak as one.

The US military was not even in country and has not been for years when it fell. Therefore how could is logically be a military defeat, when they left during peace.

The US military cannot act unilaterally, the failure to reengage is not the militarys fault.
>>
>>27521842
>The us army is not a single enity, friend. They are not a hive mind, does not speak as one.
Do you not know what an official statement is?

The US army officially states that the Vietnam war was a strategic failure. This is the official US army stance.
>>
>>27521862
>Do you not know what an official statement is?

Do you not know who is the supreme authority of the US army is?

Its political, anon. If you cant back up the statement with logical, then you are simply appealing to authority.

Logically, there is no way it could be a strategic defeat, when the US military has not been engaged in years, nor was it allowed to engage later.
>>
>>27521915
So the US army is wrong and you're right?
>>
>>27521931
Im stating that the quote is logically inconsistent and highly suspect.
>>
>>27521961
>logically inconsistent
Not really.

The US wanted out, and got North and South to sign a meaningless paper that allowed the US to save face.
Less than 2 years later the entire South was completely overrun by the communists, and 20 years of US military efforts were down the drain.

So it's no mystery why the US military and political leaders consider Vietnam a strategic failure.
>>
>>27521983
>The US wanted out, and got North

So you agree that they forced the NVA to the table?

>Less than 2 years later the entire South was completely overrun by the communists,

A little over 2 years, but yes, after the US was out of country for those two years.

Sounds like a failure of the south to defend.

Politically, yes, it was a failure and i dont argue this.
>>
>>27521478
>"US generals from a single side of the war" are saying THEY THEMSELVES failed.
the us generals are not america, the us military failed strategic objectives and won tactically, which is irrelevant.

The question was, why did THE USA lose to vietnam?
Easy, the USA did not lose, its military branches left on a somewhat bad note.

America won against communism, as is obvious today.

Were you to ask if the american military lost in vietnam, your answer would be somewhat correct pertaining to certain objectives, but that wasnt the question, so learn to read before you spout out hippie nonsense.
>>
>>27521961
Look
Your argument about the South falling after the US pulled out was rendered irrelevant by >>27521552 's argument, which was made multiple times in the thread and you ignored it.

Answer me this: WHY do you think the US left, knowing full well that the South was going to get overhwelmed? To me it sounds like the US was retreating. Oh wait, that's exactly what it was =^)
>>
>>27518816
>This is what burgers actually believe
>>
>>27522051
Name one strategic goal the US military failed while in the country?

If you say elimination of the NVA, i will kek.
>>
>>27522033
There you go again.

Do you honestly think the US military and political leaders didn't know about any of this when they called the Vietnam war a failure?

>>27522051
The US political and military leaders at the time (and presently) called the Vietnam war a failure, based on the same information you have access to (and then some).
Public opinion in the US very much agrees.

It's time to stop trying.
>>
>>27522060
>knowing full well that the South was going to get overhwelmed?

Except this historically is not the case. You have some hindsight quotes, but at the time the south was much stronger than the north.
>>
>>27522080
>Do you honestly think the US military and political leaders didn't know about any of this when they called the Vietnam war a failure?

Did not know what?

At the time is was a victory, hence why kissinger got the peace prize.
>>
>>27522094
>Did not know what?
US military and political leadership knew all those facts you just brought up.

And they come to the conclusion that the Vietnam war was a failure.
>>
>>27522080
>It's time to stop trying.
im not that anon

but theres no need to try, when vietnamese get paid 2$ a day for labour and americans make 10$ an hour doing the same work.
the war in vietnam made this possible.

we won, game set match period end of story, sorry if the history channel let you down.
>>
>>27522109
>we won
Then why do the US military and political leaders say the opposite?
>>
>>27522119
>Then why do the US military and political leaders say the opposite?
because theyre talking about strategy, not the aggregate war.
>>
>>27522106
Again, i have no qualms with the political side, but you are now simply appealing to authority.

You have no logical means to explain why they came to this conclusion, then its simply a fallicy, specifically appeal to authority.

I contend the statement from the army was politically motivated.
>>
>>27522082
Wrong. If the South had been stronger than the North, the US wouldn't have sent nearly as many troops as they did. When they left, they didn't leave a "trip wire force" like they did in Korea, ensuring that the North doesn't try to re-invade. If they had done that however, Vietnam wouldn't be the Communist shithole it is today. But they didn't because they were tired.

If you don't consider war to be some dick-measuring contest that determines which country is the best, you have no reason to keep being in denial. Just admit it to yourself that the US isn't invincible, and that a loss in Vietnam doesn't make the US inferior. And stop letting your blind patriotism get to your head.
>>
File: MACvSOG (1).jpg (511KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
MACvSOG (1).jpg
511KB, 1100x1100px
>>27522161
>Vietnam wouldn't be the Communist shithole it is today.
theyre not communist.
you can thank these guys.
>>
>>27521270
I thought the DC was destroyed when the VC sampans caused a massive tidal wave. Then all the euros cheered as the communists won.
>>
>>27522135
That makes no sense.

>>27522148
>appealing to authority
You're doing the exact same thing, only you're claiming you're a greater authority than the people behind the Vietnam war.

>I contend the statement from the army was politically motivated.
What does the army stand to gain politically from admitting failure?

And what about Kissinger, McNamara, Taylor, ... ?
>>
>>27522210
>That makes no sense.
yeah it does, you just dont possess the acumen to understand.
>>
>>27522161
>Wrong. If the South had been stronger than the North, the US wouldn't have sent nearly as many troops as they did.

What?

The South was stronger when the US left, and fought and took a bunch of terrority. This is undisputed fact, proven earlyer in the thread. Hence why no tripwire force was left.

>And stop letting your blind patriotism get to your head.

Im not, but im not going to ignore history because muh feels.
>>
>>27522222
The US army says Vietnam was a "strategic failure", but somehow this means the US still won the war?
Again: that makes no sense.

Also, McNamara, Kissinger, Taylor don't use the word "strategy".
>>
>>27522210
>only you're claiming you're a greater authority than the people behind the Vietnam war.

No, i have never done this. If somebody can logically explain the statements, i will adjust my viewpoints accordingly.

>What does the army stand to gain politically from admitting failure?

The army offical statements follows the current admins viewpoints. I dont think you understand the american system, and who is ultimately in control.

>and the other political figures (sic)

It was politically popular to make it a defeat.
>>
>>27522257
I agree, it logically makes no sense, hence the suspect nature of the answer.

How can the us army strategically lose a war it is uninvolved in?
>>
>>27522258
>No, i have never done this.
Well yes you have.
US military and political leaders have access to the same facts as you (and then some). But you are saying you know better than they do.

This means you're claiming to be a greater authority than they.
>>
File: MACVlogo.png (1MB, 849x1008px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
MACVlogo.png
1MB, 849x1008px
>>27522257
>but somehow this means the US still won the war?
yes, in 1975 noone saw the outcome as a win because its effects werent seen.
after vietnams war with china shorty after and the fall of east germany, communism failed and the war in vietnam turned out to be worth the investment, it became part of a series of efforts destroying communism forever.
>>
>>27522277
No, your statement makes no sense.

>How can the us army strategically lose a war it is uninvolved in?
By pulling out dry and allowing 20 years of military efforts to be erased in the blink of an eye.

>>27522286
>in 1975 noone saw the outcome as a win
Except the commies right? Because they won?
>>
>>27522286
>implying the vietnam war had anything to do with the fall of the USSR
>implying SOG didn't get btfo in 1968
>>
>>27522283
>But you are saying you know better than they do.

No, im stating the us armys statement is logically inconsistent with the facts.

Stephen Hawkings can say the green grass is purple, does not make is correct just because he said it, nor does it make me "smarter" than him to disagree.

Hence, why appeal to authority is a fallicy anon
>>
>>27522299
>By pulling out

Ok, thank you. The US army was completely uninvolved in this political manuver, nor did the NVA force them out, the US did.
>>
>>27522299
>Except the commies right? Because they won?
if they did, they wouldnt have signed the peace treaty.
at the very best it would be a pyrrhic victory, which is a far stretch on its own.

>>27522308
sog turned into CIA SAD after the official end of the war and beat the communists without bloodshed, the good old psyops way.

they also had about 12 medal of honors among the one unit, i dont think any other unit ever existing that had so many.
>>
>>27522228
If the American presence was truly as overwhelming as you think it was, they would have left a tripwire force without a doubt. But nope, tactical defeat, saving face, etc.
>>
>>27522316
>No, im stating the us armys statement is logically inconsistent with the facts.
Exactly, you're saying you know better than they do based on the same facts.

You're appealing to your authority as a keyboard warrior.

You do not know more about the Vietnam war than the people who orchestrated, fought, and finished it.
>>
>>27522330
>If the American presence was truly as overwhelming as you think it was, they would have left a tripwire force without a doubt.

No, the south was strong enough to stand on its own (before the arab oil crisis), hence why no force was left.
>>
>>27522325
>The US army was completely uninvolved
Standing idly by after pulling out is in no way uninvolved.

Hence why US political and military leaders call Vietnam a failure.

>>27522328
>if they did, they wouldnt have signed the peace treaty
The peace treaty was a meaningless piece of paper, and not two years after it was signed the entire South was overrun by the communists.

Hence why US political and military leaders call Vietnam a failure.
>>
>>27522331
>You're appealing to your authority as a keyboard warrior.

Lel, i am appealing to logic, and nothing more.

You seem to be incapable of logically explaining their statements.
>>
>>27521631
>The vietnamese were a shattered peoples

>successfully reunites the country
>tells Pol Pot to fuck off
>tells China to fuck off when they get invaded

Yeah okay.
>>
>>27522354
>The peace treaty was a meaningless piece of paper,
then why did they sign it?
>>
>>27522362
>i am appealing to logic
Says you.

You're using the same facts to come to the opposite conclusion of US military and political leaders.

You're saying you know more about Vietnam than the people who actually orchestrated the Vietnam war.
>>
>>27522354
>Standing idly by after pulling out is in no way uninvolved

So you DO lack the knowledge of how the us military works.

I completly understand your viewpoint now. You think the military is capable of unilateral action. This is false, 100%
>>
>>27522385
So you are just going to appeal to authority, or can you logically counter my points?
>>
File: 1443660308174.jpg (418KB, 1222x1630px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1443660308174.jpg
418KB, 1222x1630px
>>27522403
you cant argue with statists, they will gobble up anything "official" even if its covered in semen, infact, especially so.

fucking MACVSOG "officially" didnt even exist until 1980, that doesnt mean they werent commiting war crimes on a daily basis fucking the shit out of charlie. so much so, that there was a cash reward for any NVA responsible for killing a SOG member.
>>
>>27522373
Because they were going to overrun the south anyway.

>>27522386
>you DO lack the knowledge of how the us military works
Me and the US army lol.

>>27522403
I already have: >>27521983

Based on roughly the same facts, the US military and political leaders come to the opposite conclusion as you.

You cannot appeal to your authority to counter their assessments, because you simply do not know what they know.
>>
>>27522437
>Because they were going to overrun the south anyway.
and after their chinese backers ended up going to war with them, had the US been there that wouldnt have happened.

america got to sit back and watch yellow on yellow go at it while they prospered. how was this failure?
>>
>>27522437
>Me and the US army lol

So now you think that the US army is capable of unilateral action, and thinks this?
>>
>>27522348
The US was in the war for 17 years. You're saying that 17 years of war effort went to waste because the US army was careless.

They were defeated
>>
>>27522447
If you believe I think that, then you believe the US army thinks that.
Because I'm simply agreeing with their assessment.

>>27522443
>how was this failure?
I dunno, ask the US army, Kissinger, Taylor, MacNamara, ...
>>
>>27522316
Look we know the Appeal to Authority gets your dick hard, this is like the 20th time you mention it

Here's another fallacy: The Fallacy Fallacy. Presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim is necessarily wrong.

Now STFU about fallacies faggot
>>
I don't get why people think Vietnam was a failure

I think the reason why our military thinks we "lost" was because it wasn't the steamroll we thought it would be. We thought, "lol, how can they stand up to our big American awesome", and then they did. And suddenly, we couldn't just roll through everything. And we were actually receiving more casualties than we thought we would and Americans back home got pissed because people actually died in a war
>>
>>27522465
>I dunno, ask the US army, Kissinger, Taylor, MacNamara, ...
>Appeal to authority....again....
i would if i could, but they didnt really comment on vietnam too much after it was obvious the war was a success after all.

>>27522465
>MacNamara
its also mcnamara, if youre going to be an uninformed shill, at least get it right.
>>
>>27522487

see >>27522481
>>
>>27522465
> I'm simply agreeing with their assessment.

OK, so you believe that.

If i were to show you that was false (us military acting unilaterally), would you agree that this makes the statement in question logically inconsistent?
>>
>>27522487
>Appeal to authority....again....
The facts are the same for everyone. You're saying nothing new.

You're saying you know better than the US military and political leaders behind Vietnam.

You are the one appealing to your authority.

>>27522495
>so you believe that
If you think I believe it, then you think the US army believes it.
>>
>>27522484
Because the US tried to many years to prop up Vietnam and years later they left, separate conflict or not, South Vietnam fell and all those years of fighting was rendered absolutely meaningless. It's not really a victory if all your efforts weren't worth much in the end.
>>
>>27521467
That sums it up fairly well.
>>
>>27522502
>If you think I believe it, then you think the US army believes it.

How is this even logical? Are you giving me power over your viewpoints?
>>
>>27522492
you cant substantiate the fallacy so your response is to say it cant always be wrong because it probably is?

>>27522502
>You are the one appealing to your authority.
no, im using proven facts, not verbatim from people whos job it is to make the country/organization look good.
>>
>>27522522
>no, im using proven facts
The same facts used by the US military and political leaders behind Vietnam.

So you're saying you know better than they do. You're appealing to your authority over theirs.
>>
>>27522522
>you cant substantiate the fallacy so your response is to say it cant always be wrong because it probably is?

I'm not even him. All I'm saying is that pointing out fallacies doesn't disprove arguments, and it doesn't make you cool either.

That one would be called "The Strawman"
>>
>>27522522
>make the country/organization look good by calling their decades of work a failure for the US

Heck that gives more reason to trust their assessment.
>>
>>27522542
>All I'm saying is that pointing out fallacies doesn't disprove arguments

The guy does not have a logical argument.

He argument is (x) said it so its 100% true.
>>
>>27522328
>CIA SAD beat the communists, not the inherent repressive nature of communism and its economic shortcomings
>MOH is an indicator of battlefield success

topkek
>>
>>27522535
>The same facts used by the US military and political leaders behind Vietnam.
name one fact i used that the us military used.
>>
>>27522522
>make the country look good

Oh, so you're one of those people.
>>
>>27522546
>Heck that gives more reason to trust their assessment.
yeah because theyre not going to lie to make themselves look good or anything
>>
So i guess that guy IS giving me control over his viewpoints.
>>
>>27522556
>and its economic shortcomings
and where do you think those came from?

>>27522546
not really, they said it to stay in line with public opinion, which was one of the reasons for pulling out anyways
>>
>>27522580
>CIA SAD is responsible for systemic economic pitfalls in marxist theory

ok
>>
>>27522565
If they wanted to make themselves and the government look good they would say the exact same thing you did. "We protected S Vietnam while we were there", "Communism was contained", "we killed so many of those gooks", "we never lost a field battle", blah blah blah. But instead they said "these sets of foreign policies the country was on for many years and that we''ve worked on was a failure".
>>
>>27522586
nope, but to add insult to injury they sped things along sure enough.
>>
>>27522597
>If they wanted to make themselves and the government look good

No, themselves.

It became poltically popular to label vietnam as a failure.
>>
>>27522555
His argument is that the people behind the operation would have more knowledge of the conflict than the average person ever would. It's not a groundbreaking argument, but calling out a fallacy certainly isn't. It's more like a way to evade having to respond with a counterargument.
>>
>>27522597
>If they wanted to make themselves and the government look good they would say the exact same thing you did.
nope, it was and still is popular opinion that the war was useless, to agree with the public is to build rapport.
>>
>>27522610
>but calling out a fallacy certainly isn't.
arguing poorly doesnt make him wrong, but it surely proves he is not right.
>>
>>27522610
No. It is a straight fallicy in the face of logical argument, by definition. Its textbook.

Then, he gave me this gem.

>>If you think I believe it, then you think the US army believes it.

That is the caliber of individual you are defending.
>>
>>27522607
>the foreign policy that we were partly responsible for making was a failure
>making themselves look good
>>
>>27522643
Oh yes, 100% to the public who viewed the war as unwinnable. They got them out.
>>
>>27522643
>>making themselves look good
it did, they built rapport with a nation that hated them for being baby killers.
they agreed they were wrong, like a politician admitting he fucked up and was going to "change things" for the better.

there wasnt a better move they could have made tbh.
>>
>>27522629
>arguing poorly doesn't make him wrong, but it surely proves he is wrong

that's what you just said in a nutshell. All it proves is that he's arguing poorly actually. Thanks for the free rhetoric though.
>>
>>27522522
>not verbatim from people whos job it is to make the country/organization look good.
In what universe does "we failed the war" make anyone but the enemy look good?

You know what, don't answer that.
Jesus fuck.
>>
>>27522670
>that's what you just said in a nutshell.
not really, just because hes not right doesnt make him wrong, being wrong about a certain point does not make the concept wrong.


>>27522698
>You know what, don't answer that.
>Jesus fuck.
already did, had you bothered to scroll down and not sound off like an over emotional airhead.
>>27522667
>>
>>27522667
>politicians trying their hardest to get on N Vietnam's good side after failing to quash them as a fighting force capable of threatening the South
>strategic victory
>>
>>27522640
I'm not defending him or his argument, because it doesn't prove anything. I'm defending his position on the subject. But mostly attacking you for naming the same logical fallacy over and over again.
>>
>>27522719
the nation i was referring to was america numbnuts
>>
>>27522640
You have roughly the same facts as the US military and political leaders.

However, you are coming to the exact opposite conclusion.

Therefore, you are saying you know better than they do.

You are appealing to your authority as keyboard warrior over their authority as architects of the Vietnam war.

Guess what, you lose.
>>
>>27522717
>>27522667
The US admitted in the middle of the cold war that they failed against communism in Vietnam.

They didn't admit this to make themselves look good, this is just you being silly.
>>
>>27522717
>being wrong about a certain point does not make the concept wrong.

No shit. It's impossible to be 100% accurate on all accounts in any subject, so like I said, pointless rhetorical response.
>>
>>27522734
"Admitting" to your own populace that the past military conflicts didn't accomplish much doesn't sound like a strategic victory to me.
>>
File: 1393696370913.png (85KB, 299x288px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1393696370913.png
85KB, 299x288px
>>27522776
>>
>>27522776
I don't agree with him on the outcome of the vietnam war, but he has a point. Kind of. It's always easier to demonize the strong and the victorious.

Doesn't mean he's right however. Nothing more than speculation.
>>
File: 1436760520896.png (243KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1436760520896.png
243KB, 1366x768px
>>27522735
>Guess what, you lose.
>>
>>27522795
I was being facetious wasn't trying to make that a serious argument, not that I've seen any serious argument of how the war was a strategic victory.
>>
>>27522605

proof, evidence required
>>
>>27522757
>No shit.
then why are you typing?
>>
>>27522950

You: "appeal to authority, you're wrong"
Me: "actually arguing poorly doesn't make him wrong"
"...but it proves he's not right"
"actually it only proves he's arguing poorly, aka not providing any objective proof"
"That's actually what I meant"
"That was completely pointless and meant nothing. Doesn't diminish his belief, or ehances yours. After all, you are using speculation as your argument as to why the US would admit to a tactical defeat"
Thread posts: 384
Thread images: 29


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.