anti-war progaganda

>>34338527
>being this butthurt

the US lost, get over it

>>34338540
>the US lost
maybe politically but not militarily

>>34338587
>failed to achieve stated military objectives, even if the objectives were vague and incoherent

that means the US lost militarily

>>34338701
>3 gooks dead per american soldier

yea nah

>>34338797
Just like soviets per german soldier but that doesnt change anything. Its sad but we have to admit, we got fucked in vietnam

>>34338797
If one American soldier kills three villagers thats not a won war militairy

>>34338797
By that logic, the US won in 'Nam.

Which it obviously did not.

>>34338701
>>34338831
>>34338865
>>34338900
>>34338797

When we negotiated the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, we secured the independence of South Vietnam and offered material support to match any North Vietnamese equipment purchases. Then Congress suspended further aid to South Vietnam and the North Vietnamese invaded.

>>34338540
>>34338587
>>34338701
>>34338797

We won tactically but lost strategically, literally "Won the battle but lost the war"

Can we at least agree on that?

>>34338921
So it's basically the fault of Congress that South 'Nam fell? Why the hell does this surprise me?
>>34338934
Yeah, this pretty much sums it up.

>>34338921
>paris peace accords never affirmed south vietnam as a sovereign nation, it was referred to as one party fighting a civil war
>paris peace accords did not once mention material support for south vietnam
>congress did not suspend aid, they cut the ceiling from $1 billion per year to $300 million. vietnamization was the lie sold to the US public that south vietnam could defend itself, that was obviously not the case even with $300 million a year

get your facts straight, nigger

>>34338934

tactics are subservient to strategy, US tactics did not serve any strategic goal. kill counts and ratios do not prove tactical superiority in any way whatsoever.

>>34338995
>So it's basically the fault of Congress that South 'Nam fell? Why the hell does this surprise me?

another dumb lie perpetrated by stupid revisionist niggers

the ARVN had already lost the central highlands to the NVA while US funding was free flowing. that is like the germans losing the seelow heights. the war was already lost, congress cutting off funds before the inevitable end has nothing to do with the outcome.

No, it's called Freedom of Speech you pussy.

>>34338797

>what did you accomplish
>WE KILL SUM COMMIES
>yeah but did you stop the spread of communism
>NO BUT
>did you do anything with a measurable benefit to the world at large or the United States
>NO BUT

>>34338934

America lost.

America lost so damn hard in Vietnam. The whole thing was a mistake.

It was decades ago. Suck it up and admit it.

>>34338527
What a faggot. Not sure if it's desensitization but I don't blink when I see or hear about horrible shit. How anyone can change their whole outlook because some third worlders were burned alive by napalm is beyond me. How can you feel bad about someone who has nothing in common with you, is not someone close to you, and is not physically near to you?

I'm trying to imagine people 800 or 1000 years ago and how they would react. People used to be crucified, impaled on a stake, drawn and quartered, all sort of shit. This was state-sanctioned and supported by large swathes of the population. During actual wartime I know lots of shit happened too. Didn't one of the Mongol warlords kill an entire city of people?

The hippie in the film is right. Americans never had to deal with stuff that happened in Vietnam. That doesn't mean we should all feel like him though. It means lack of struggle and strife has made us weak, soft, squishy. The average western man is an effeminate pussy

>>34339331
Yeah fuck having empathy for people you've never met! You're never gonna see 'em so it's like it never happened!
Jesus what fucking stage of morality are you on? Third Grade? How is it "squishy" or "soft" to feel some contrition for war crimes for innocent people had to endure? What the fuck?

>>34338527
Guns are fun, militaria is neat, but war is bad.

File: 1497382442809.png (86KB, 404x277px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 404x277px

You know you can like guns and weapons and never ever want to actually use them against someone, right?

>>34339419
Are you saying not everyone on /k/ have killed? They're not all soldiers, mercenaries, or serial murderers?

Ugh, this changes everything.

>>34338527
>Destroy history and culture
Fuck off.

The Vietnam war was a pointless exercise that caused nothing but suffering on both sides. It wasn't a battle against Communism, we fucking funded the Khmer Rogue for fuck's sake in order to have them fighting the Vietnamese. It was a war for drug money and politicians.

Operating is fine, guns are fun, vets are great, war is shit, war that benefits Statist cunts exclusively is worse than shit.

>>34339378
you know he's right, if not neck yourself traitorous shitbag

>>34339390
>>34339419
Fucking these.

>>34339511
pussy

>>34338587
You have that backwards.

File: pli16837.jpg (862KB, 1719x947px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 1719x947px

>>34338934
so you are saying that the US-military won but was backstabbed by US-politics?

>>34339378
It's most likely underage b&.

Your frontal lobe isn't fully developed until around 25, so at this immature stage he still thinks being a man or being tough is the same thing as apathy. Of course, it's not, but with any luck he'll grow out of it.

>>34339542
Bootlicker.

Killing kids for the benefit of politicians gets you nowhere.
Vietnam was not a justified conflict, see >>34339465
We were not fighting Communism but instead making money off drugs. It was an engagement without reason, without reason other than politicians filling their pockets.
Just like recent sandbox conflicts have been fought for the interests of Israel, (minus Afghanistan, but that's debatable).

You should fight for your own values and reasons, not for the sake of just fighting like some edgy fedora tipping loser who needs to feel his hateful eye to achieve full ametsura, faggot, and DEFINITELY not for some politician who robs you every day.

>>34339564
>>34339378
you guys are total pussies

>>34339589
>I saw a rekt thread once
>I'm now indifferent to the suffering of others
>War is neat, it's not just because I'm underage b& guise

Okay, buddy.

>>34338527
>"the oriantal doesn't put the same high price on life as does the westerner"

wew

>>34339465
Amen.

>>34338527
Censoring people and destroying media?
SHALL

>>34339603
shutup gook lover

>>34338934
This.

>>34339000
That's not correct though. tactics should be used to achieve strategic goals, but you can have a tactical victory but not a strategics victory.

>>34339553
It was the military's fault for not understanding the war and trying to win in a way that would not achieve victory realistically.

>>34339751
MacNamara told Jerry Pournelle that the strategic intent was not to win, but to caused Russia economic pain through attrition of war stocks.
Hence the public hyping of body counts etc. The American public would never accept a generation of young men being thrown into a meat grinder in an attempt to cause the meat grinder to wear out.

Any comparison of losses of vehicles, helicopters, fighters, bombers and trained, educated young men will show that America lost the strategic battle that the US govt. set.

A friend of mine was a medic on hamburger hill. The day Saigon fell he burnt his uniforms and medals and went on a drunken/drugged bender for several months that to this day he has no recollection of.
A good women pulled him out of it. He's a Mod on a major gun forum these days and a retired doctor.

TL, DR: Vietnam should never have happened.

>>34339812
>MacNamara told Jerry Pournelle that the strategic intent was not to win, but to caused Russia economic pain through attrition of war stocks.
That makes sense, though that's pretty twisted. I wonder how much that vision was shared among other higher ups.

>>34339877
MacNamara came from the MIC, so it may have been articulated in the board rooms, but not on Capitol Hill.
Pournelle was involved with Minuteman and Apollo, it was in an off the record discussion, rather than a policy conference, as Vietnam was outside Pournelle's area of responsibility.

>>34339751
>but you can have a tactical victory but not a strategics victory

no you can't, at that point you're just counting enemy KIA. it is not a legitimate tactic or strategy.

look at ia drang, revisonists claim that is a US victory because of muh enemy KIA but guess whose strategic goal was fulfilled by the outcome? who fought the battle using tactics fitting their strategic goal?

>>34338527
No, that's Kino
Kinographies should never be destroyed.

>>34339378

When the fuck did "killing the enemy in the most efficient manner available" become a (((war crime?)))

The only wars we should fight are ones against commies.

>>34343086
Napalm isn't efficient though

>>34338934

More like "won the war" but the whole war was pointless to begin with.

>>34338797

kill ratio doesn't really work unless you consider humans to be equal

>>34339812

>MacNamara told Jerry Pournelle that the strategic intent was not to win, but to caused Russia economic pain through attrition of war stocks.

...we'll deplete your equipment stocks by making them use them up shooting Americans

all of my wuts

>>34343124
>won the war

topkek

how can someone be this fucking stupid even with four decades of hindsight