3 ms·

If you aren't willing to actually fight a war, then maybe you shouldn't fuck around and waste people's lives on a half-hearted adventure.

by douche 10y ago

Teever 10y ago
So you're arguing that we should kill more people to save people?
- douche 10y ago
  That is not in any way what I'm proposing. I'm saying that if you're going to fight a war in Vietnam, you should land the Marines at Haiphong and capture Hanoi, rather than idle away ten years and tens of thousands of American lives on a failed adventure, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians that died along the way. If you're going to topple the government of a middle eastern country, you need to actually stick out the occupation and build a structure that will stand on it's own, rather than descending into anarchy when you pull out. If you're not willing to invest in that, then perhaps you shouldn't invest in the initial "Shock and Awe" portion of the campaign. Moreover, 3000 years of history should be enough to convince anyone that invading Afghanistan is a terrible idea, maybe one step down from "launch an invasion of Russia in late summer."
  - slv77 10y ago
    US rules of engagement were partially to prevent Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War. The Chinese already had 100,000 advisors in the country in an anti-aircraft role and a full scale invasion of Hanoi by US Marines would have almost certainly resulted in a response by the PLA. Even though the Chinese troops were poorly armed and poorly trained relative to US troops they had undergone some degree of moderization since the Korean War where they had fought the UN to a standstill. Given the logistical advantages of the Chinese to mass men and material (it was on their border vs half the world away) it isn't obvious the US would have prevailed in a escalated conflict. China was also a nuclear power by 1965 which was not true during the Korean War. But I don't think any of this disagrees with the main point of your comment which is don't intervene where the rules of engagement prevent you from winning.
gte525u 10y ago
Wasn't that the whole takeaway of vietnam? - killing people != winning the war

If you aren't willing to actually fight a war, then maybe you shouldn't fuck around and waste people's lives on a half-hearted adventure.

by douche 10y ago

If you aren't willing to actually fight a war, then maybe you shouldn't fuck around and waste people's lives on a half-hearted adventure.

Teever 10y ago

So you're arguing that we should kill more people to save people?

douche 10y ago
That is not in any way what I'm proposing. I'm saying that if you're going to fight a war in Vietnam, you should land the Marines at Haiphong and capture Hanoi, rather than idle away ten years and tens of thousands of American lives on a failed adventure, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians that died along the way. If you're going to topple the government of a middle eastern country, you need to actually stick out the occupation and build a structure that will stand on it's own, rather than descending into anarchy when you pull out. If you're not willing to invest in that, then perhaps you shouldn't invest in the initial "Shock and Awe" portion of the campaign. Moreover, 3000 years of history should be enough to convince anyone that invading Afghanistan is a terrible idea, maybe one step down from "launch an invasion of Russia in late summer."
- slv77 10y ago
  US rules of engagement were partially to prevent Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War. The Chinese already had 100,000 advisors in the country in an anti-aircraft role and a full scale invasion of Hanoi by US Marines would have almost certainly resulted in a response by the PLA. Even though the Chinese troops were poorly armed and poorly trained relative to US troops they had undergone some degree of moderization since the Korean War where they had fought the UN to a standstill. Given the logistical advantages of the Chinese to mass men and material (it was on their border vs half the world away) it isn't obvious the US would have prevailed in a escalated conflict. China was also a nuclear power by 1965 which was not true during the Korean War. But I don't think any of this disagrees with the main point of your comment which is don't intervene where the rules of engagement prevent you from winning.

gte525u 10y ago

Wasn't that the whole takeaway of vietnam? - killing people != winning the war