• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

VIETNAM or IRAQ WAR: What is it good for?? Absolutely nothing?? Or ...????

skim

Teaching MIDN how to drift a BB
None
Contributor
65 years ago, the world was in real danger of falling under the control of two totalitarian and genocidal empires. The only possible response to that threat was total war. The threat from Islamic extremists today is also very real, but they're not exactly on the cusp of world domination. So is an all-in, reinstate-the-draft, pave-the-country approach really the most appropriate response to the threat from these terror cells? The way I see it, the War on Terror is unlike any war we've ever fought in that it's primarily a war of security and intelligence, not armies squaring off against each other and the demand that puts on manpower and resources.

But on the other hand, I agree with MasterBates that a limited war means a limited chance to win that war. If we're going to go into a country and overthrow the government, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to see it through. And we certainly can't leave a country in worse shape and more dangerous than we found it. If we don't have the will to do whatever it takes to win, then we have no business starting a war. We can't just go into a country and hope that our limited war will be enough, then have no plan B when that doesn't work out.

Sounds much like the Powell Doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
 
What were the consequences of losing the Vietnam war?

I think, in a certain sense, we got off very lucky with the whole affair. The domino effect didn't pan out, the Soviets crashed for economic reasons, and a great many people see "communist" Vietnam as rapidly shaping itself into a respectable, capitalist, productive member of World Society.
.

From people I have talked to and read about, I don't think that tossing away pilots or ground troops while never having an intention to win the war pans out as acceptable. :icon_wink

I do however understand (I think) at what you are trying to say that in the long run communism killed itself off and thus us losing was a null point.

I think if we are going to fight in a war/police action/occupation period/(insert favorite term here)

We should be there with one goal - total complete victory on our terms and ours alone. Unlike the Vietnamese who just wanted us to leave them alone I doubt that the Islamic countries will be happy for us to stop at "bothering" them and expect that they will continue to pursue us.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Now before I step on any toes or say something supremely stupid and ignorant, just hear me out.

What were the consequences of losing the Vietnam war?......
Step on toes??? How about nose??? Don't you guys ever see beyond the end of your nose???

How does 2.5 million dead Cambodians and @ 2-5 million "boat people" (depends on your source) who had to leave their country and over 1 million "reeducated" Vietnamese sound for starters .... nearly 200,000 who died in the "reeducation" camps ???

vietreeducationnx1.jpg
vietreeducation1ba3.jpg




How about throwing away 55,000+ American G.I.'s ... for no purpose. To lose is not a purpose. To win is at least .... something.

I flew Viets, Laotians, Cambodians, Hmong's and many others back to the USA for years when we were doing a LOT of relocating of those peoples that we had abandoned -- those who we had promised to support. Instead -- we ditched 'em and pulled out. For domestic political reasons. That makes your word --- worth nothing.

How about the Jihadists and many, many more around this nasty ol' world that now and forever that see the U.S. for what it has become -- soft and unwilling to get dirty -- and
unless we go all out and crush someone which is highly unlikely -- that would take guts and political courage that I have not seen in quite a while -- as we're too soft and feminized now days to rip someone's throat out -- they will continue to believe that. I'm talkin' nations, here. Fortunately where Iran and nukes are concerned ... we still have one reliable friend who has the requisite fire in their belly to do what is necessary ....

So what does all this make us?? A paper tiger ..... that's what. The term --- 紙老虎 -- came from the Orient. Some think it dates from @150 years back, but we know this --- i
n 1956, Mao Tse-tung said of the USA:

"In appearance, it is very powerful, but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger..... "


Unfortunately, I find myself more in agreement with the Chairman at each and every passing decade.


Sooooooooo .... how are those for starters?? :)
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
.....The threat from Islamic extremists today is also very real, but they're not exactly on the cusp of world domination. ...
Neither were the National Socialists and Japanese militarists ... "on the cusp of world domination", to use your vernacular ..... but they were building, planning, and arming while the rest of the world slept ...

Today, all it takes is one nuke to do what 1000 Pearl Harbors did.
 

skim

Teaching MIDN how to drift a BB
None
Contributor
I do however understand (I think) at what you are trying to say that in the long run communism killed itself off and thus us losing was a null point.

I dont think that losing a war is ever a null point, no matter how one loses.
 

eddie

Working Plan B
Contributor
I fail to see your point. Are you saying that there were no consequences for us losing? Or, that by us losing led to Vietnams capitalism and the end of the Soviet Union?

For many Americans, there were no tangible consequences, and none of the bad things that should were supposed to happen did.

The Vietnam experience shapes the public's response to this present war. They are not invested in it, and they do not feel they have to be, because experience tells them it will not matter. In this sense, the greatest consequence of losing in Vietnam was that it trained people not to care.

I think A4s and I are actually in agreement. A lot of people, both our own, and "them over there" are going to get hung out to dry. Again.
 
I dont think that losing a war is ever a null point, no matter how one loses.

I wasn't trying to say that losing was a null point but rather the reason of going to war being to stop the spread of communism which later killed itself on it's own effectively made that reason for going to war a null point.

100% agree with you if you go to war it should be to kick ass.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
We should be there with one goal - total complete victory on our terms and ours alone. Unlike the Vietnamese who just wanted us to leave them alone I doubt that the Islamic countries will be happy for us to stop at "bothering" them and expect that they will continue to pursue us.

Not the countries themsleves, but a few of the radical citizens.......big difference.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Neither were the National Socialists and Japanese militarists ... "on the cusp of world domination", to use your vernacular ..... but they were building, planning, and arming while the rest of the world slept ...

Today, all it takes is one nuke to do what 1000 Pearl Harbors did.

The Japanese and Germans were much more powerful than Islamic militants could ever hope to be. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany threatened our very existence, Islamic militants don't.......
 

WishICouldFly

UO Future Pork Chop
As a conventional military, how can we combat supranational entities such as Islamic radicalism? Instead of just 'kicking ass', shouldn't we be adapting a political solution to take away the incentives to resorting to terrorism?
While I obviously do not condone terrorism and allowing our country to be attacked without an angry response, our tense relationship with the Islamic world didn't happen overnight...they didn't just wake up one day and decide to hate us. It was a lengthy process (origins can be debated) in which both parties (the West and Islam) had a role in.
 
The Japanese and Germans were much more powerful than Islamic militants could ever hope to be. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany threatened our very existence, Islamic militants don't.......
......yet. I think his point was that National Socialists weren't much of a threat to global security until they seized control of a country's resources and people. I'm not saying this is any kind of certainty, but we are not completely safe (especially if you consider Iran's current foreign policies). World communism is not over with either, people. the Chinese still number over a billion as I last checked and it appears the PLA is working pretty hard to bring their military up to speed with America's.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
The Japanese and Germans were much more powerful than Islamic militants could ever hope to be. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany threatened our very existence, Islamic militants don't.......
I'm surprised, to say the least.

You're completely wrong
-- you need to review your 20th century history. Japan was potent only to the degree we allowed -- think raw materials and industrial base ..... they had nothing but what we allowed them to buy and overrun . .... but they were smart, cunning, and planning ... yes, most certainly. And Germany??? They were the poor man of Europe after WW1.

For the time I'm referring to --- try the '20's and '30's ... or even during the Rhineland and Sudentenland excursions -- how about the rape of the Chinese mainland?? How about the Pacific Mandates?? WE allowed it to happen. WE let it happen ....

If the Brits and French or ANYONE (maybe the U.S.????) had drawn a line in the sand -- game over for the bullies.... as they ONLY succeed when good men do NOTHING. That's a constant.

Which is the whole point. Give your word. Keep your word. Be as good as your word .... we didn't and haven't for decades, now.

And you consider the Nazi's and Japanese more powerful than the current brand of Islamo-facism???? Rubbish. Consider the Islamists controlling the oil in the Middle East --- consider what that will do to the world economy ... it will make the Nazi's and Jap militarists look like pikers by comparison ....
 
Top