Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
- Carl von Clausewitz

So, no more "we lost the politics, not the war" excuses. The US failed to achieve its political objectives in Vietnam, even if the final failure of those objectives occurred after US troops had abandoned the fight. North Vietnam achieved its political objectives by out-lasting the US on the battlefield, until the US conceded defeat and went home. Trying to spin this into some kind of US victory is pretty blatant bias in favor of the myth of the "undefeated" US military.

just quoting old dead german carl does not make it truth. maybe had we been driven from the country and saigon fell shortly after, then maybe. but it took until 1975 for north vietnam to win, and they were cautious to avoid the US returning to the field. The Paris peace accords formally ended the war. The north restarted it after we left.

"I didn't get beat, I quit!"

Used by grade schoolers as well as people pretending we were successful in Vietnam.

 d-usa wrote:
"I didn't get beat, I quit!"

Used by grade schoolers as well as people pretending we were successful in Vietnam.

The Paris Peace Accords, officially titled the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, was a peace treaty signed on January 27, 1973 to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The treaty included the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries.

how is that a defeat?? 2 years later south vietnam fell, on their own, having been left with a force of about 920k to face 219k of the NVA and VC.

We forced our allies to sign a treaty they did not like, lied to them about us helping to defend them when the treaty would be violated, never actually ratified the treaty, and are now pretending that we had nothing to do with South Vietnam getting fethed after we left.

The US was defeated in Vietnam. Signing a peace treaty doesn't change that. Germany signed many peace treaties, maybe they won both World Wars as well.

Edit:

To be frank, I realize that the same people arguing in favor of a historically successful United States military intervention in Vietnam are also the same people who are arguing that the pro-nuclear-proliferation, pro-killing civilians, "why haven't we nuked anybody" candidate being the "peace candidate". So I know that I'm just wasting my time until the upcoming MOD-post reminding us that arguments about the outcome of the Vietnam War have feth-all to do with US Politics in 2016.

Edit 2:

My wife is giving me the stink-eye for fighting an ideological proxy-war on DakkaDakka rather than spending the expanded holiday weekend with her. In light of the fact that I have lost the popular support for the conflict at home, I shall declare myself the victor and exit this discussion. I take great comfort in the fact that I won the argument, and that any further rebuttals to my position will be made against other liberals and that they will not reflect negatively against me in any way, because I left while declaring myself victorious.

 d-usa wrote:
We forced our allies to sign a treaty they did not like, lied to them about us helping to defend them when the treaty would be violated, never actually ratified the treaty, and are now pretending that we had nothing to do with South Vietnam getting fethed after we left.

The US was defeated in Vietnam. Signing a peace treaty doesn't change that. Germany signed many peace treaties, maybe they won both World Wars as well.

Edit:

To be frank, I realize that the same people arguing in favor of a historically successful United States military intervention in Vietnam are also the same people who are arguing that the pro-nuclear-proliferation, pro-killing civilians, "why haven't we nuked anybody" candidate being the "peace candidate". So I know that I'm just wasting my time until the upcoming MOD-post reminding us that arguments about the outcome of the Vietnam War have feth-all to do with US Politics in 2016.

Edit 2:

My wife is giving me the stink-eye for fighting an ideological proxy-war on DakkaDakka rather than spending the expanded holiday weekend with her. In light of the fact that I have lost the popular support for the conflict at home, I shall declare myself the victor and exit this discussion. I take great comfort in the fact that I won the argument, and that any further rebuttals to my position will be made against other liberals and that they will not reflect negatively against me in any way, because I left while declaring myself victorious.

definately a liberals response. I pretty much disagree with everything you said.. As for the second edit. get used to it. wives always win. period.

 thekingofkings wrote:
definately a liberals response.

What does liberal vs. conservative have anything to do with it? Is the myth that the US military can not possibly ever be defeated an inherent part of conservative ideology now?

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
definately a liberals response.

What does liberal vs. conservative have anything to do with it? Is the myth that the US military can not possibly ever be defeated an inherent part of conservative ideology now?

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail. I have no idea what is or isnt part of conservative ideology.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
definately a liberals response.

What does liberal vs. conservative have anything to do with it? Is the myth that the US military can not possibly ever be defeated an inherent part of conservative ideology now?

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail. I have no idea what is or isnt part of conservative ideology.

Hahahah, what?

This is part of conservatives deciding the whole concept of patriotism belongs to them, right?

 Spinner wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
definately a liberals response.

What does liberal vs. conservative have anything to do with it? Is the myth that the US military can not possibly ever be defeated an inherent part of conservative ideology now?

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail. I have no idea what is or isnt part of conservative ideology.

Hahahah, what?

This is part of conservatives deciding the whole concept of patriotism belongs to them, right?

ask a conservative.

Right, sorry. You're totally not.

Of course.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail.

Lolwut? Most liberals will have no problem acknowledging that, say, the US won WWII. The failure of Vietnam has nothing to do with some paranoid theories about liberals needing the US to fail, it has to do with the fact that the US failed to achieve its political objectives in Vietnam. The goal of the war was to defend the independence of South Vietnam from its communist neighbor's attempts to take over. The US fumbled along without any real plan for how to win the war and rules of engagement that virtually guaranteed that nothing would ever be accomplished (not allowing a counter-attack to invade and take control of North Vietnam). Victory would have been creating a stable situation where North Vietnam is removed as a threat and US troops could leave South Vietnam without putting the "ally" we were protecting in any danger. The US indisputably failed to do this. No matter how many individual battles we won North Vietnam remained as a threat, and soon after the US decided to withdraw from the conflict and stop defending South Vietnam they resumed their invasion attempts and accomplished their political goal of unifying Vietnam under a single (communist) government.

In short, when the US could have accomplished the same end result by not getting involved in Vietnam at all it's a pretty clear sign that the war was a failure. We fought, we won battles, but in the end none of it meant anything.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I do think that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs. .

Well no kidding since they had already sent request for terms of surrender before nukes. They had already decided to surrender

 BrotherGecko wrote:
...
North Korea is a rational state, you just don't know what you are talking about. Again, read more on North Korea and understand geopolitics instead of marching about making ignorant claims and tooting your horn.

This is a regime run by a leader so reckless and inhumane that he prioritizes nuclear weapons and missiles over the well-being of the North Korean people.

Antony J. Blinken
Deputy Secretary of State
Seoul, South Korea
October 28, 2016

https://www.state.gov/s/d/2016d/263872.htm

 thekingofkings wrote:

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail.

This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

Indeed. Let's get back to bashing conservatives as angry, ignorant stick-tool-using savages who are trying to create the Fourth Reich.

tneva82 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I do think that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs. .

Well no kidding since they had already sent request for terms of surrender before nukes. They had already decided to surrender

More to the point, that was then. This is now.

Currently, the US military is powerful enough that they can take out any country on the planet without needing to use nukes to do it. For Christ's sake, sometimes all they have to do to stop entire wars from happening is just sail one of their fleets nearby the two countries that might go to war and just SIT there, doing nothing. You have missiles that can take out 50 tanks at once without blowing up a massive area, they just disperse a whole pile of things that target each tank and kill it. You have fuel-air bombs you use to clear out minefields and bunkers that are mistaken for nukes because of how big the explosion is - the blast registers on seismographs in other countries. You can take out factories within cities without taking out the city itself.

You don't NEED nukes to win wars nowadays.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

Indeed. Let's get back to bashing conservatives as angry, ignorant stick-tool-using savages who are trying to create the Fourth Reich.

We still use sticks as tools nowadays if they're the correct tool for the job.

The most common use of a stick is as a handle or lever.

 r_squared wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
...
North Korea is a rational state, you just don't know what you are talking about. Again, read more on North Korea and understand geopolitics instead of marching about making ignorant claims and tooting your horn.

This is a regime run by a leader so reckless and inhumane that he prioritizes nuclear weapons and missiles over the well-being of the North Korean people.

https://www.state.gov/s/d/2016d/263872.htm

that's what trumps been saying these last couple weeks.

So is trump wrong because he agrees with Kim, or is Kim right because he agrees with trump?

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

Indeed. Let's get back to bashing conservatives as angry, ignorant stick-tool-using savages who are trying to create the Fourth Reich.

I don't recall saying that, oddly enough.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
definately a liberals response.

What does liberal vs. conservative have anything to do with it? Is the myth that the US military can not possibly ever be defeated an inherent part of conservative ideology now?

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail. I have no idea what is or isnt part of conservative ideology.

Hahahah, what?

This is part of conservatives deciding the whole concept of patriotism belongs to them, right?

ask a conservative.

Hi there...

My name is whembly... and a conservative.

I think the issue is that people try to separate the actual military's prowess (ie, breaking/killing things) from it's political endeavors (ie, occupation, rebuilding).

There's no dispute that the military kicked asses in Vietnam and Iraq. Just as there shouldn't be dispute over the failures in it's political missions as well.

Frankly, my opinion is that you shouldn't separate the two, as they do go hand-to-hand. However, I think everyone ought to acknowledge that the US can subjugate a foreign power's military in short order... however, absent something like the US Marshall Plan and/or longterm rebuilding strategy (ala, Iraq post '06), changing the political situation is fraught with perils.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What the hell is going on in America these days that a Presidential nominee can tell a crowd about the time he attempted to murder one of his friends and gain support because of it?

Jesus. No really, there's a huge thing among conservative Christians where a person does awful things, but then is Saved and admired for how they have found Jeuss and turned their life around. Carson's thing was a textbook "found Jesus" story aimed at that group, whether or not it was actually true.

Don't worry I hear Trump's wall will keep Jesus out of the country in the future.

Promise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail.

This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

how long will it hold that title?

 Peregrine wrote:


In short, when the US could have accomplished the same end result by not getting involved in Vietnam at all it's a pretty clear sign that the war was a failure. We fought, we won battles, but in the end none of it meant anything.

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm also one of those who say that the US military was not defeated in 'Nam... Though reading through some of the responses, I can see how people form the idea that it was the military that was beaten. This bit that I quoted is, I think, the crux of the matter where that is concerned... The boots on the ground kicked ass to their abilities, but without an idea of what to actually do, the proverbial chicken was just running around with no head.

And so, I guess you could say that the military failed/lost because of that lack of leadership, but I think it's slightly unfair to those who were sweating and bleeding over there.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
What the hell is going on in America these days that a Presidential nominee can tell a crowd about the time he attempted to murder one of his friends and gain support because of it?

Jesus. No really, there's a huge thing among conservative Christians where a person does awful things, but then is Saved and admired for how they have found Jeuss and turned their life around. Carson's thing was a textbook "found Jesus" story aimed at that group, whether or not it was actually true.

Don't worry I hear Trump's wall will keep Jesus out of the country in the future.

Promise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Liberal ideology is pretty much anti American to the point that even when the US succeeds, it has to fail.

This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

how long will it hold that title?

I dont know we had someone on the R team openly posting anti semetic rhetoric for a bit.

 Ustrello wrote:

I dont know we had someone on the R team openly posting anti semetic rhetoric for a bit.

well that didn't last long

 Vash108 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

I dont know we had someone on the R team openly posting anti semetic rhetoric for a bit.

well that didn't last long

Who?

 whembly wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

I dont know we had someone on the R team openly posting anti semetic rhetoric for a bit.

well that didn't last long

Who?

It's probably nice not to name names, but he doesn't seem to be allowed to post in OT any more. He was also the sort of person who'd immediately suck all the air out of a thread and was very insistent that he wasn't a bigot and was tired of being called a bigot, BUT...

I'm sure if you think about it, you'll remember.

Not to denigrate the military, but I don't think we can claim to have won Vietnam, considering the immediate results. If you help your little brother fight a bully, then show him a few karate kicks and wander off to play XBox while he's getting his head stuffed in a toilet, I don't think you can really say you have beaten the bully.

I think the most respectful thing to do is to take the lessons we've learned from it and not try to dress it up as something it's not.

 Spinner wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
This is one of the most offensive, insulting, and uneducated comments I've seen in this thread.

Indeed. Let's get back to bashing conservatives as angry, ignorant stick-tool-using savages who are trying to create the Fourth Reich.

I don't recall saying that, oddly enough.

That's because no one said it.

Something right leaning posters (and if I'm to believe all the links they leave here) continually fail to grasp is that left leaning posters keep lacing their comments with qualifiers (most of us anyway) but that doesn't stop even the people those qualifiers exclude from declaring broad strokes and damning the "liberal menace."

That and I don't think right or left leaning posters on this board have ever made a habit of what the poster in question has done, which is blatantly insult the entire opposition as America haters. Maybe we imply it but we never actually say it It's like we're back in the MacCarthy years. where anyone who suggests America doesn't always win and isn't always right must hate America or something.

As to the hilarious little bit here about Vietnam, all I got is "lmao" because this gak is why we keep getting involved in these gak faced ventures.

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I'm also one of those who say that the US military was not defeated in 'Nam... Though reading through some of the responses, I can see how people form the idea that it was the military that was beaten. This bit that I quoted is, I think, the crux of the matter where that is concerned... The boots on the ground kicked ass to their abilities, but without an idea of what to actually do, the proverbial chicken was just running around with no head.

There's a very good history of Vietnam (a rare one by a non-professional at that) called Triumph Forsaken by veteran Mark Moyar. He presents at length a very comprehensive and well done argument that the United States lost the Vietnam war on political grounds (namely because it lacked the political will to win the war), and had nearly defeated North Vietnam militarily in the late 60s. A lack of popular support and growing criticism that we were defending a non-democratic capitalist kleptocracy, which is what South Vietnam really was, prevented political entities that be from giving the military the capacity to finish the conflict both because the war was unpopular and because politicians feared a repeat of the Chinese intervention in Korea.

There is no way to interpret the US as winning Vietnam. It was a cluster feth from the get go and doomed to failure. Nothing we did was going to keep South Vietnam safe, and the constant arguments about whether or not we "could have won" generally seem to distract from the reality that it was the height of our hypocrisy that put us there to begin with. South Vietnam was a capitalist kleptocracy ruled by a oligarchial elite who declared independence when they lost the election to the Communists and who held the entire southern half of the country hostage for the sole sake of protecting their own wealth and power. Maybe the communists were bad, but the guys running the South weren't better and somehow that wasn't the last lesson we needed on getting involved in foreign boondoggles that kill our soldiers for no gain. The Vietnam war was little more than American Warhawks sending young men to die to grandstand for "Freedom" under the ill conceived nothing that the Domino Theory was a real threat and that defending tyrannical capitalists was somehow better than ignoring tyrannical communists.

On the bright side, things actually worked out kind of sort of things could be worse for Vietnam. Sure they're not a western country with a high standard of living and great civil rights protections or anything, but they could be doing worse

Dershowitz: Obama Will Go Down In History As One Of The Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed President Obama for "stabbing Israel in the back" on Monday morning's edition of 'Fox & Friends.'

"[History will see President Obama] as one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever," Dershowitz said.

"He called me into the Oval Office before the inauguration -- he said he wanted my support, and he told me he would always have Israel's back," Dershowitz said. "I didn't realize what he meant: That he would have Israel's back so he could stab them in the back."

He continued: "What he did was so nasty, he pulled a bait and switch. He told the American public this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet, he allowed he representative to the U.N. to abstain --which is really a vote for-- a resolution that says the Jews can't pray at the Western Wall, Jews can't live in the Jewish Quarter [of Jerusalem] where they have lived for thousands of years. And he's going to say, 'Whoops! I didn't mean that!' Well read the resolution! You're a lawyer, you went to Harvard Law School."

He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."

 r_squared wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
...
North Korea is a rational state, you just don't know what you are talking about. Again, read more on North Korea and understand geopolitics instead of marching about making ignorant claims and tooting your horn.

This is a regime run by a leader so reckless and inhumane that he prioritizes nuclear weapons and missiles over the well-being of the North Korean people.

Antony J. Blinken
Deputy Secretary of State
Seoul, South Korea
October 28, 2016

https://www.state.gov/s/d/2016d/263872.htm

I like your qoute, it neatly shows you don't know what state or geopolitical rationality means haha. I like when someone uses a citation to prove that they don't know what they are doing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-missile-programs-rational.html

Read this, then expand from there.

 whembly wrote:


He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:


He also said: "This will make peace much more difficult to achieve because the Palestinians will now say 'we can get a state through the UN'."

Really? They're just now going to start saying that?

This is why it troubles me that people take Fox seriously.

I doubt Obama's going down as the Worst Foreign Policy Presidents Ever (not when we have Wilson for comparison), especially when uncritical American support for Israel is already considered a monumental blunder by most of the historical community. But no. Nevermind that, let's talk about how it's completely Obama's fault that the Palestinians are just now saying "we can get a state through the UN. Yeah that makes sense