BF2S Forums U.S. has been the greatest military aggressors of the last century

Horseman 77 wrote:

Why am I the only one who can remember the FBI agents executed in Pakistan in the First weeks of 1992
The Kandahar Marine Barracks, The USS Cole, TWA flt 800, WTC93 attack (that almost dropped the Tower),
Our Embassies in Kenya  and Tanzia Etc. and on and on.

Bubbalo wrote:

Which relate to Iraq how?

Try reading the Post you copied the text from Then you will know how it realates.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Why did we let Hitler become " aggressive  " ?

How many lives would have been spared if we acted earlier in a less popular manner ?

Bubbalo wrote:

Or you could have gone to war when he first invaded a non-aggressive neighbour.  Or, y'know, stopped Germany from going into the economic collapse that caused Hitler to be able to gain power

That was my point, and it was The USA that instituted the "Marshal Plan" Stopping another Economic collapse after 1945.
A little slower than average are we?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Protect our people first.

Bubbalo wrote:

So, it's not reall about how many lives, but *whose* lives then?[

Yes your catching On. G.W.B. is resposible for Americans and Answers to The USA only. glad you picked up on that finally.

Bubbalo wrote:

Don't get up the the high horse, you're real bad at it.

All I did was mount up, You said "Boy, his horse sure is high ! "

If you cant read the entire post and stay current on the Topics and context being addresed Stay off your mommy's computer and don't waste our time.

You are like a bee in a Classroom. An anoying distraction of little account and no real threat, best left alone and ignored.

Alright. I completely agree with all the U.S. haters. The U.S. should be like sweden. hell we should give our country to sweden. We should sit back and watch dictators rule.

Hitler? Very cool guy

Stalin? Awesome

Tojo? My brotha from another motha

Noriega? He's my cousin. We party like no tomorrow

Saddam? My b*tch. he's my best friend

Aidid? A sweet ass mofo (Don't get me started on Battle of the Black Sea, the US kicked Somali rebels asses. no doubt about)

Bin Laden? Talk about great conversation over Afghan rum. Very nice man

Korean/Vietnam War? Commies r pwnz0r. Commy es 1337 h4x0r!!111\


THE WORLD WITHOUT U.S. INTERVENTION

Europe, Northwest Asia is German.

Middle East runs rampant between the 50 different groups, and Israel is non-existant, as with kuwait

South america is a playground for rebels

Australia, Pacific, all Japanese under Tojo/Hirohito thinking

Africa? Disease/Terrorist breeding ground


The entire world would run rampant.


Like it or not, you have to face it.


The United States of America is the sole remaining superpower with the ability to keep the world stabilized. Hence, they are the police, acting when the UN, EU, and NATO with their little "Do it because we said so"s don'y work. We will liberate and yes invade to keep the world under control. If you don't like it, then band together to pull some of your country's wait on the grand scheme so we don't have to do it all, or start a new civilization on a different planet.

Bubbalo wrote:

No, America lost Vietnam because the American army is designed to fight conventional warfare.  Against guerillas their tactics and equipment were relatively useless.  This was worsened by poor training and discipline amongst American troops.

lol you are a victim of "pop cultural history"  the US didn't lose Vietnam anymore than the French did. The issue of conventional vs. non-conventioal is best answered by the Commander-in-Chief of North Vietnam's forces, General Vo Nguyen Giap, who admitted that the US never lost a large battle and lost few small battles. He also correctly claimed that it was the will of the US people that lead us to depart South Vietnam not the military accomplishments of the North (even though Giap is what I consider significantly brilliant in the history of military leadership). That final phase of Vietnam's 1000 year bid for sovereignty began at the Potsdam conference in WW2 where the Allies cut up the post war world. It was the gutsy Vietnamese people who had a singular vision of a unified nation who beat the failed strategy of the Potsdam members.

The US was in South East Asia for roughly 10 years and had abandoned the fight 2-3 years before the South fell in April '75. What did the US lose actually? Not counting any internal US strife please just the international stuff. The temporary loser was the unified Vietnam who, in 1975, dropped to become the 3rd poorest nation on earth and for 2 decades remained as such. It is good to see them emerging now, good people.

People often confuse loss with the bad taste many people had about fighting the Vietnam War. The war was South Vietnam's to win or lose not the USAs. The South first had French in and they got tired of fighting the South's fight and later so did we, so we both left. The South did not have the will to sustain a separate "democratic" country and judging by the talent involved the North got the best of post WWII people to lead them to unification.

One need only to look at how the Cold War played out to see the real winners and losers in Vientnam.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-05-26 08:04:41)

Bubbalo wrote:

The French *did* lose the First Indochina War, ever hear of Dien Bien Phu?

As to your comments that the US won all major battles, I would remind you of the oft quote quoted phrase that they "won the battle, not the war".  The US won on a tactical level, the Vietnamese won on a strategic level.

The French never helped the South.  Up until the French withdrawal, Vietnam was not North and South.  It was partitioned into 3.  And the South, as I have said before, did *not* support the Americans.  The Americans assisted an unpopular government.

And, how does the playing out of the Cold War affect the winners and losers in Vietnam?

Strangely enough, this post is mostly correct.  This:

Bubbalo wrote:

And the South, as I have said before, did *not* support the Americans.

however, is not correct.  What I have seen you say was this:

Bubbalo in ">http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=25137]whittsend wrote:

The majority of the population didn't decide to help the VC or NVA any more than they decided to help us.

Wrong.  Overall support was for Nationalist elements of the VC (who, I might add, object to the term Vietcong).And there is a BIG difference between supporting one side and supporting no side - as has already been noted in the other thread.

Bubbalo wrote:

I didn't say they supported no side, merely that they didn't support Americans.  And I will get to your other post in the morning whittsend.  It's 1:30am atm.

No, I said they supported no side.  That is clear from the quote.  I agree that they did't support the US, or even their own government, but you have said they supported the VC.  That is incorrect.

See you Monday (I don't post over the weekends...better things to do on my own time )

Bubbalo wrote:

The French *did* lose the First Indochina War, ever hear of Dien Bien Phu?

As to your comments that the US won all major battles, I would remind you of the oft quote quoted phrase that they "won the battle, not the war".  The US won on a tactical level, the Vietnamese won on a strategic level.

The French never helped the South.  Up until the French withdrawal, Vietnam was not North and South.  It was partitioned into 3.  And the South, as I have said before, did *not* support the Americans.  The Americans assisted an unpopular government.

And, how does the playing out of the Cold War affect the winners and losers in Vietnam?

The battle slogan you remind us of is incomplete and does not indicate a loss as you mentioned in your previous posting.  You definition of win/loss is different than mine - I base mine on vested interest vs. outcome. The unification efforts did not acknowledge legitimacy in the Potsdam partitioning from the beginning.

We agree about the unpopular and often puppet governments as I said in my post as well (if I remember right it was something like 15 governments in 25 years damn!). 

If we go into Tactical, Strategic levels, etc., it is the outcome that counts and that is how the Cold War applies. The US strategic goal was to keep communism from expanding and Vietnam was incapacitated past the time the USSR collapsed. Tactically both the North and US were able to hit where and when they pleased, but the US usually came out on top. The chronology and definitions must be equal and often US bashers use any tool of wordcrafting to belittle the US.

Vientnams "strategic" goal had national borders, the US's strategic goal was international and surpassed the time and space of South East Asia of the 60s and 70s. Apples and oranges as they say.

The issue missed is that the parties involved did not synchronize their strategic agends lol

OpsChief wrote:

. Panama i am undecided but I think the operation sent a clear signal to corrupt governments that there is a line that should not be crossed. Anyway if you add all the casualities of all those Aggressor actions it is peanuts compared to others in that century.

When the Middle Eastern Press uses the term "aggressor" it has a very specific meaning of "trespassing initiator" and sometimes "infidel" is added for flavor. Unilateral Military actions may include aggressor status but that is a much wider definition that does not apply to initiating war or military action. Was there any sovereign nation that we attempted to capture and keep in the 20th Century? We occupied after wars, we protected after threats to peace but nothing like the Big Four Japan, Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China.

.

Noriega, i beleive in his famous machete chopping speech (apparently he had to leave immediately to harvest bananas, not good to let your nanas rot), waved his nana chopper and said he declared war on the US......................blackhawks and wackiness ensue. This was actually quite humorous as it shows what can be done to druglords and warmongers without the interference of the pussy whipped UN. I swear it was so short that I saw the whole thing on tv, the halftime show was awesome.

Except that the UN would not have disallowed action because war had already been declared.

Bubbalo wrote:

If you refer to the US domino theory, that is clearly flawed, as despite Vietnam turning communist, everywhere else did not follow.  So whilst it's true to say there was no domino effect, this was not because of US efforts.

When you look at the before and after statistics and viability of Vietnam as a potential major manpower or other resources contributor to the communist efforts in the Cold War it is extemely relevant.

The Vietnamese at one point could have put over two million soldiers in the field but they could not leave their own country due to crippled logistics. Their potential to participate in other regional or global armed military conflicts beyond walking anf foraging distance was zero after we fought them.

The key is to apply the same rules of analysis to everyone in context to their national strategies not local or regional strategies. We all have read and heard much since the Vietnam war and often political rhetoric slips into the history books but the pendulum eventually swings back lol

Whether the Domino Theory was flawed or not it applies to and defines the Strategic objectives.  From the time we arrived until after we left the US Military held South Vietnam. After the peace treaty and our own demilitarization and major departure (from ~543,000 in 1973 to under ~50,000 advisors by 1975) the unification eventually occured.

btw I take France out of my previous comments because after just reevaluating their national strategy in balance with the reunification effort France did lose, I agree. Their goals were finite and not on-scale with US or VietMinh views.

Panama

whittsend wrote:

Not everywhere, but Laos and Cambodia did.  China was already communist, and Communist rebels were a concern for other neighboring countries.  Domino theory was hardly a law of nature, but history shows it isn't a reactionary's fantasy either.

Laos and Cambodia were also part of Indochina, which suggests it wasn't a domino effect so much as those countries which France colonised were in similar states.  Although, I'm not sure you could call the Khmer Rouge communist, wasn't he the guy who pushed people out of the cities?  This is anathema to Marxist theory, which states that the revolution uses an urban industrial worker base.

OpsChief wrote:

The Vietnamese at one point could have put over two million soldiers in the field but they could not leave their own country due to crippled logistics. Their potential to participate in other regional or global armed military conflicts beyond walking anf foraging distance was zero after we fought them.

It was zero *before* you fought them.

Bubbalo wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

The Vietnamese at one point could have put over two million soldiers in the field but they could not leave their own country due to crippled logistics. Their potential to participate in other regional or global armed military conflicts beyond walking anf foraging distance was zero after we fought them.

It was zero *before* you fought them.

OK do I have to go into details about escalation?    hmmm i'm a longwinded sob let's see what I can do....

Attrition applies on the geo-strategic pre-emptive level too. I think Sun Tzu called it denying key terrain to the enemy.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-05-26 09:21:06)