So maybe we got it all wrong

[Centurion1]

Yeah maybe Fragony does not especially like Muslims, i have never seen him run around posting Death to Islam.

Horetore, Iran still has humans rights problems, Many eastern European nations still suffer from severe corruption and other problems, after Yugoslavia fough tto sepaerate from single authority (which they deserved) there was genocide. And the shah in iraq....... i'm not sure what you mean.

And Hax, Vietnam was a very winnable war but the american population had no backbone among other issues (a drafted military when it should have been volunteer). I dislike comparisons of Iraq and Afganistan to Vietnam as they are completely different conflicts.

[Aemilius Paulus]

And Hax, Vietnam was a very winnable war but the american population had no backbone among other issues (a drafted military when it should have been volunteer). I dislike comparisons of Iraq and Afganistan to Vietnam as they are completely different conflicts.

Yeah, true. The North Vietnam, the VPA, was a solid front, a coherent conventional army. Of course, the Viet Cong were mostly guerillas in the Southern Vietnam, but that is an another story. Still, even with all as it was, even if US did manage to destroy the VPA, the war would be far from won, due to the insane numbers of partisans remaining. And I find it stunning that US could not make significant progress against the conventional VPA. I guess the terrain really was that bad...

Wait, volunteer military? Haha, good joke. After almost exactly 60,000 American dead, I doubt very many wanted to join... Logically, the US population is so large that it should have found enough willing recruits, but why then did they institute the draft? Because they needed more men who did not sign up I suppose. Which means the sentiment really was that opposed to war. And the lack of backbone is as much of a problem as a lousy military. Look at the Russian Empire in WWI. Internal strife is more dangerous than enemy munitions. Many wars are won by words, not weapons, and the DRV won that war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, true. The North Vietnam, the VPA, was a solid front, a coherent conventional army. Of course, the Viet Cong were mostly guerillas in the Southern Vietnam, but that is an another story. Still, even with all as it was, even if US did manage to destroy the VPA, the war would be far from won, due to the insane numbers of partisans remaining. And I find it stunning that US could not make significant progress against the conventional VPA. I guess the terrain really was that bad...

Wait, volunteer military? Haha, good joke. After almost exactly 60,000 American dead, I doubt very many wanted to join... Logically, the US population is so large that it should have found enough willing recruits, but why then did they institute the draft? Because they needed more men who did not sign up I suppose. Which means the sentiment really was that opposed to war. And the lack of backbone is as much of a problem as a lousy military. Look at the Russian Empire in WWI. Internal strife is more dangerous than enemy munitions. Many wars are won by words, not weapons, and the DRV won that war.

Actually, the Thet Offensive pretty much finished off the Viet Cong, if you read Into the Storm by Tom Clancy and Gen. Fred Franks, you'll see that the major problem was the desire to institue a DMZ and political division between North and South, as in Korea. Essentially, the American Police Action failed because it was not preceeded by an actual war in which any attempt was actually made to defeat the NVA.

The Cage by Tom Abrahams is a more personal analysis by a British Officer of the problems he faced in the American Army.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually, the Thet Offensive pretty much finished off the Viet Cong

Yeah, I know that, but the fact that US was not able to make significant headway before is what surprised me. I would not say 'pretty much finished', but yes, it was supposed to be the turning point for US if not for the propaganda victory of the shocking offensive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This was because Vietnam was a Police Action, not a War, in trying to maintain the DMZ the US denied itself the opertunity to actually hurt the NVA and instead used Agent Orange throughout the South, hence a loss of hearts and minds.

The Soul of the US Army died in Vietnam, and I still don't think they have it back.

[Centurion1]

Yeah, true. The North Vietnam, the VPA, was a solid front, a coherent conventional army. Of course, the Viet Cong were mostly guerillas in the Southern Vietnam, but that is an another story. Still, even with all as it was, even if US did manage to destroy the VPA, the war would be far from won, due to the insane numbers of partisans remaining. And I find it stunning that US could not make significant progress against the conventional VPA. I guess the terrain really was that bad...

Wait, volunteer military? Haha, good joke. After almost exactly 60,000 American dead, I doubt very many wanted to join... Logically, the US population is so large that it should have found enough willing recruits, but why then did they institute the draft? Because they needed more men who did not sign up I suppose. Which means the sentiment really was that opposed to war. And the lack of backbone is as much of a problem as a lousy military. Look at the Russian Empire in WWI. Internal strife is more dangerous than enemy munitions. Many wars are won by words, not weapons, and the DRV won that war.

There was not a very logical mindset. There would have been plenty of volunteers to draw from but the US still thought it was dealing with WW2 and everyone would be willing and honored to serve (which is of course a generalization). Volunteers made up a pretty solid percentage of troops in Vietnam. However, it was mostly draftees i'm sorry to say who whined and ******* their way through the war and committed atrocities they blamed their superiors on. And while i said it had a major impact, and it did the anti-war movement was relatively small. Mst americans disapproved of the anti-war demonstrators but were silenced by the vulgar and very public displays to demonstrators put on. The anti-war movement was made up of alot of cowardly draft dogers in my personal opinion though my opinion is clouded by family ties.

What the Us truly suffered from was zero clearly defined goals. What was the point? To preserve democracy, sure that's grand but give me something tangible. Therefore, the average American soldier had nothing to fight for, nothing to really hold in his mind as what he wanted, unlike his father in WW2. Not to mention the issues with being unable to invade the north and our inability to fight a guerrilla movement (which i believe we have improved on). America did not tactically or strategically lose Vietnam, they lost because of a vibrant and loud anti war movement back home and poorly defined goals.

[The Wizard]

Yeah.. you didn't actually read the article, did you?

The claim is that the Afghan Mullahs did not support Bin Laden, ergo attacking Afghanistan was not justified. It doesn't say the country was ever a Liberal egalitarian paradise.

And my post was a sarcastic rejection of such a preposterous idea. A barbarous regime like that of the Taliban has no right to sovereignty or legitimacy.

The Taliban and Iraq were brought down because it was beneficial to the West. Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea, and Burma are left alone, because there's nothing that will benefit ourselves there.

No, they're left alone because they have friends in high places (Russia and China, anyone?). Afghanistan lost those after 9/11.

And how exactly do you infer from the fact that I was wrong about the Geneva Conventions (something which I admitted) that I have no problem with human rights abuses or selectively apply moral and politically progressive outrage at savage regimes? Have you ever read any posts of mine about any of the countries you've mentioned? No? Then keep quiet.

Well yeah, they are horrible but it's a horrible place, but if this is true it isn't our problem. If they aren't a threat I have no business in their home.

Democracies have business in any oppressor's home. They also have business outside the home of anybody being oppressed. An attitude like yours is cowardly and beneficial to evil regimes across the globe.

[HoreTore]

Yeah maybe Fragony does not especially like Muslims, i have never seen him run around posting Death to Islam.

Horetore, Iran still has humans rights problems, Many eastern European nations still suffer from severe corruption and other problems, after Yugoslavia fough tto sepaerate from single authority (which they deserved) there was genocide. And the shah in iraq....... i'm not sure what you mean.

And Hax, Vietnam was a very winnable war but the american population had no backbone among other issues (a drafted military when it should have been volunteer). I dislike comparisons of Iraq and Afganistan to Vietnam as they are completely different conflicts.

Iran still has human rights violations and eastern europe still has problems? Of course, but that wasn't even close to the point, which was that it's very possible to topple a regime without the use of military force.

[Centurion1]

Iran still has human rights violations and eastern europe still has problems? Of course, but that wasn't even close to the point, which was that it's very possible to topple a regime without the use of military force.

whats the point if you can't clean up the place after your done.

[Hax]

About the Vietnam war; there are several issues that immediately come to mind when I see the United States failure to effectively "win" the war. As you stated, there was now real objective set, apart from turning North Vietnam into one big crater. Some other issues are:

- Fighting an unjustified war for a tyrannical government that was far worse than Ho Chi Minh, who I find a lot more agreeable than Nixon or Johnson. The Diem regime was probably one of the worst things that ever happened to Vietnam

- The "ends" justify the means. The Vietnam war was like the dire half-dragon version of that. It was a war based on the near-complete annihilation of a nearly invisible foe to preserve the very limited South Vietnamese version of democracy, which included rape, torture, mass conversion and many other nice western traditions. And now I haven't even mentioned the horrors of the child prostitutes on the streets. The United States governmen't didn't care about the basic human rights of Vietnamese citizens, but what's at least on par with the acceptance of the deaths of thousands of Vietnamese citizens, they actually sent in thousands upon thousands of their own citizens to fight this useless war for a useless cause, a cause that had been corrupted and hollowed out, I think, just about after the Korea War. John Fogerty and Bruce Springsteen have explained this way more eloquently than I ever could, though.

Now that I'm fired up, I'd like to say this as well:

I have a huge problem with the way the conservative right in America seems to choke up every time a band starts playing bombastic music and flags are raised and soldiers are pointing their phallic objects in the air. To be honest, it doesn't impress me in the least. I think it's an absolutely horrible thing to feel pride in the fact that our tools of death our better than "the enemy's (Germans, Japanese, Vietcong, Afghani's, Muslims) tools of death and that we should feel some sort of weird heroism over the fact that our soldiers are going out to shoot those people under the guise of bringing democracy. It's absolutely horrible. By now, I will probably, among the McCarthyists, I will probably have finally settled myself as another Godless Communist/Liberal/Socialist, but I couldn't really care about that either.

I for one closely align patriotism, nationalism and fascism and as such, the raising of flags and the before-mentioned bombastic music doesn't impress me. Rather, it leaves me with a foul taste in the mouth. For me, it's patronizing and immoral and it comes creepily close to a misplaced feeling of superiority. When will we learn that in the end, we're all humans?

EDIT: I might have come across as a hater of America, which would be totally weird because

1) I don't feel hatred towards people/institutions/nations in the first place.
2) I deeply respect the diversity and general tolerance that is present in some places in the United States...San Francisco, for example.

As such, I am inclined to say that I just have a large problem with the pro-war/life (think about that for a moment) faction in the United States that seems to have quite some power at the moment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hax:

As a part of the set that enjoys patriotism and takes some pride in our military, I must say I respect you for the clarity with which you express your opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever as to where you stand. I will note that, even for those of us right-to-life/support your military types, we do not necessarily whitewash everything that has ever been done at the behest of our government. Moreover, I distinctly recall my priest one Sunday giving us a homily to the effect that it was a good thing to support our military, to be encouraged when their efforts made things safer for us, but that to take joy from the deaths of others -- even the enemy -- was sinful. Don't presume that opinions are all monolithic simply because the media gets better "conflict" for their headlines by citing the most inflamtory components of what is expressed.

The Vietnam war was a debacle of the worst sort. We fought it the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, and all too often with the wrong tools. If we'd simply sent in the USMC, the Green Beanies, and the Peace Corps we would probably have done better. All of those organizations actually had a history of making a difference in such "small wars" or in developmentally backward areas. Instead, Westmoreland and MacNamara tried to do things a la WW2. Didn't work well enough. Unfortunately, by the time Abrams was in charge and pursuing his "one war" approach, public support was already on the wane. Net result was a win for Giap. You CAN win almost every battle and still lose the war.

[The Wizard]

Giap hardly commanded many of the most famous and biggest Vietnamese offensives.

/historical nitpick

[Hax]

As a part of the set that enjoys patriotism and takes some pride in our military, I must say I respect you for the clarity with which you express your opinion. I have no doubt whatsoever as to where you stand.

Thank you . It's more refreshing than the usual "why do you hate freedom/America" response, I must say.

I will note that, even for those of us right-to-life/support your military types, we do not necessarily whitewash everything that has ever been done at the behest of our government. Moreover, I distinctly recall my priest one Sunday giving us a homily to the effect that it was a good thing to support our military, to be encouraged when their efforts made things safer for us, but that to take joy from the deaths of others -- even the enemy -- was sinful.

The way how I see the military is as a necessary evil; as such, it does not inherently carry some sort of "goodness" with it. The best position for the military to be in would be only to serve in self-defense or used as a peace-keeping force when a people is suffering, and only after diplomatic negotiations. I'm not necessarily non-interventionist, but I'd rather see other ways of intervening in a situation rather than bombing a large part of a country.

The military shouldn't be above criticism (I have the feeling that this often seems to be so in America) and its actions should frequently be analyzed, to see if their actions are justified and didn't cause collateral damage (this is to be avoided at all times).

Don't presume that opinions are all monolithic simply because the media gets better "conflict" for their headlines by citing the most inflamtory components of what is expressed.

I will always try to avoid condemning of people rather than organisations. I think people should be protected, but organisations should be criticised and analyzed as often as possible. Criticism, in this aspect, is not necessarily destructive, but can also be constructive.

I cannot understand that wars can be waged in the name of humanism, while at the same time, we are killing humans left and right. There's something inherently wrong about that. If we should ever go to war, we should go to war with the idea that the people we are fighting are also humans with the same basic feelings (love, hate, fear, sadness, etc) and every opportunity for peace should be accepted as soon as possible.