Serious answers only

Serious answers only

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The whole United States Military.

Too bad it was a limited war.

They lost once

you never how bow dah if u cash me ousside

...

It was a limited war.

Also the Democrat hippies got into power. They were the ones who didnt want it to go on.

The war was literally lost because of politics.

Are you a chink?
If you are, please stop making threads like this one.

>communist governments take power in vietnam laos and cambodia

Seems like Vietman lost as well.

Leaf has some insight

Check the losses for both sides. We had like a 10:1 k/d.

You think we would have lost if we had thrown morality to the wind and decided to genocide?

The issue was trying to be on good terms with the Vietnamese people, while only weeding out "bad ones". the problem is that's incredibly difficult to determine, and then half the innocent villagers go hide in tunnels and in trees, after booby trapping half the jungle. We couldn't simply pre emptively slaughter the villages due to war rules we decided to follow.

go to hide in tunnels and trees *at night particularly

...

And lost anyway. LMAO

And still lost. Germany had a similar ratio against the soviets. It doesn't mean shit if you lost

>W-we could have won if we wanted to :( :( :(

Exactly. If the military had been allowed to invade (or nuke) the North we would've won swiftly.
Probably would've started WW3 though

Are you saying we physically couldn't have committed a genocide?

Amerifats never even won a war on their own merits, yet they spend tonnes on their military budget

>you can carry a shitty team to victory when everyone else is just dying
It's called stat-padding, faggot. One loss in ranked doesn't drop us from diamond.

One was a super power bound by rules of engagement and international rules of war.
The other, communist gorillas with no international laws or rules to follow, or care to

merica

Only reason we didn't because it was the first "broadcasted war," and liberals started chimping out regularly, preventing the military from doing its job.

When everything is broadcasted, guerilla fighters are extremely affective, especially when liberal morality dominates the debate.

Do you honestly think Palestinian farmers can take on the IDF? The Israelis could slaughter them over the weekend. But the media rather destroy their morale by presenting them as evil, while taking the side of the "plight" of the Arabs.

So it isn't really a fair comparison. If we could all exercise the liberties the Wehrmacht had, we'd steamroll jungle people in a day.

Oh look this thread again made by russian proxy.

Vietnam vets did pretty much get the nazi lite treatment when they got home.

Ahahah loser

Our military was fully capable of winning the war. The rules of engagement determined by our civilian government severely handicapped the military's effectiveness

>Those who will be more willing to win

Delete this!
They where in the trees man!
Who can against mother nature?!
:(

When you try and win a war with morale and ethics, you lose. Nothing about war is either moral, nor ethical

All you need to know about the Vietnam War.

We beat the shit out of the Viet Cong, forced them to capitulate and promised the South Vietnamese we would help if the VC came back, then democrats defunded all the shit for pushing the VC back in when they came back.

youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk

The US has been doing shit with wars lately, but I think that is by choice with the middle eastern ones.

This delusion kek

You think Napalm is in accordance to International law?

I'm saying that you are a nation of humans that was in turmoil even after what you did historically, if you would have started genociding then you'd have a revolution/coup at home.

Glorious Poland will win.

>forgot France and arguably China
how does it feel to be retarded?

You can put France and Australia on that list.

That's literally what's happened to you throughout history.

>WW1, come in at the final six months where everyone is spent

>WW2, do the same, fight 12-year old drafted Germans and then brag about it for 60 years

forgot to turn your proxy off dipshit

Before it was banned yea.
Just like flamethrowers
Just like double edged bayonets.

I think Vietnamese farmers could take on the IDF

I think our government's restraint had less to do with "morality" than international diplomacy. They didn't want to escalate the conflict to the point where the Russians would've gotten directly involved

If winning was so easy, how come the European powers couldn't do it before America entered?

pleasant kek

Ok, but you still lost.

in regards to WW1 you're right but with out us Germany would have won in Europe. Not saying that's a bad thing, but that's the truth. Also, shut the fuck up Sven. Your country doesn't even fight in wars.

>m-muh k/d
War isn't a videogame, kiddo

You stressed forward a peace treaty because you were shit scared, 'peace with honor' LMAO.

Yea, they didnt win either

We could've covered it up by simply not allowing reporters. Slaughter north Vietnam, resettle with the southerners, leave after "peace agreement and dissolvement of northern communist regime"

Even if it got out a revolution would not happen. People didn't even start protesting until we had been there for years upon years, making no feasible progress with our methods.

Again, only under the modern rules of war. The only guerilla fighters that were truly a formidable force were in WW2, I'd tip my hat to the Russian partisans, crafty, tenacious fighters. I'd also look towards the Finns against Soviets.

I'll give them my respect, but fuck this Viet and Arab bullshit. Its nonsense. They're not in any way strong, just lucky by the modern age and dumb shit like Amnesty International shoving their nose into every thing.

UR MOM

FUKIN REKT

It should have been banned the moment it was invented because of the nature of it. The US using it was practically breaking international law if you get what I am I saying.

The US and South-Vietnam wasn't more humane than the North. Not at all.

That's a burger-dream. The soviets would have won regardless, the most important thing you did was lend-lease (I'll give that the soviets might not have won without that), but that's hardly a military bragging point.

>Serious answers only
??
How about serious questions only.
Like how the fuck are we not all speaking german?

Don't worry, we're about to start winning again. You won't be able to take all of our winning

>we didn't completely genocide the VC
>scared shitless
Yeah whatever you wanna think Ahmed.

We're the jungler. We creep around, farming shit in the dark cesspits of the map, lurking, biding our time. Our team sometimes asks for help, so we gank. But we outlevel everyone. We are the apex predator. No one can do what we do. Dual lane is easy. Mid is a cakewalk. Solo is even a bit more relaxed. But jungling is the most important role, even if most feel the mid is.

SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD SHILL THREAD

...

Hm... they are now called the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, guess the commies didn't win :^)

burger-dream
God dammit. is this the newest meme?
I've already heard burger-pill
and burger-fap already.
This one is just stupid.

Killing commies is moral and ethical, checkmate.

b-b-but we coulda won!

Then you would have started WW3 and gotten nuked, congratulations on your fictional victory.

We didn't lose you piece of shit. We forced them to surrender and then when the democrats won Congress they stopped any counterattack like we had promised before. You're probably a fucking paki anyways.

Sure thing buddy, calm down, have a burger

>implying russia would have started thermonuclear war over a bunch of rice farmers

It's absolutely an important point. Soviets couldn't have supplied themselves the way we fueled their war machine. Same with the UK. We had our entire country's industry (which was the industrial capital of the world) pumping out planes, tanks, ships, ammo, guns, and steel from the second we entered the war, when we had already been dedicating a substantial portion of it already to supply Europe from a neutral position.

>mcdonalds in hanoi

whomever won, the viet namese definitely lost

At least France has won a war against the Vietnamese before

Disagreed, when you say people we fought weren't tough you're spitting on the graves of the heros that fell in battle.

The U.S. doesn't care about "winning" wars in the traditional sense. It has more to do with destabilising regions and cashing in later. Except kikes do the cashing in and Americans do the dying.

The Soviets were actually winning battles on the ground though

After the Tet-offensive the army and country were so demoralised that you had to bail. I'm sure it would have gone great to stay what with all the fragging and all (pathetic, not even the germans on the eastern front resorted to killing their officers). :^)

>he thinks that the soviets could have beat the Germans if they weren't fighting a multifront war
if the Germans didn't have to worry about us and the UK in North Africa, Italy, and France (starting in 44 obviously) they would have likely raped the soviets mercilessly or made their advances so costly the soviet union would be just as fucked as gernany. same goes for us, though. with out the russians doing russian things we probably wouldn't have been able to get much past the rhine.

Considering we beat their asses 'till we got bored and went home, I going to say the US.

You are the killstealer.

How about a serious question first, non-country.

>France literally lost to the vietcong too

Ok, you won semantics but you lost the Vietnamese war. :^)

Burgers explain. Did you bully poles so they shitpost in revenge?

>Forgetting the Japanese

Why are you such feminine little fags Sweden? Seriously.

No but OP shit question sounds like a child's question. The US militarily crushed the commies constantly during the war as your own soldiers usually did in the indochina war. In both cases the war was lost off the battlefield. So yes stupid, dick measuring shit like the kill count is relevant to OP's dumbass question.

There would still be a multifront war, the eastern front would just drag on a bit longer.

No, that's the ADC. The jungler is the silent protector.

>Your country doesn't even fight in wars
That's because his country is an advanced, progressive civilisation. A mature country.
Yours is a fat, insular, ignorant, religiotard, uneducated hillbilly swamp. A teenaged country.

>>If you kill your enemies, they win

If the rules of war were thrown out the window the US. We could easily genocide the shit out of most countries but Western nations(including our own) tend to look down on that sort of thing.

Why do Americans keep getting baited by this obvious shill with 7 proxies?

Exactly, Australia knows what up. I always liked Crocodile Dundee you know.

really trying to get that king of shitposting crown back aren't you? Good one, though. here's your (You).

>France lost to these same farmers
Really activated my almonds

We could have turned their entire country into a wasteland but the hippies wouldn't let us. We could have burned down every square foot of that country then just hung out and shot anyone as they came out of their holes.
But nah, lets just have our men die instead then leave.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

Shut the fuck up, you lost a war to birds.

>I-IF EVERYTHING WAS DIFFERENT THEN WE'D WIN! USA USA

>a few hundred vietnamese farmers
>backed by the soviet war machine back when russia was a military superpower and a billion chinese bordering their country

>a few hundred korean farmers
>backed by the soviet war machine back when russia was a military superpower and a billion chinese bordering their country

funny how the second part is conveniently left out

The army was not demoralized. Tet proved to them we could successfully fend off a major Vietcong offensive. You're correct about the American public becoming demoralized by Tet, but that was largely the result of the prevalent media narrative at the time which turned public opinion against the war

>a few hundred thousand to several million vietnamese farmers, posing as innocent civilians
FTFY

> the war was lost off the battlefield
Hm?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

>implying white people haven't measured how advanced their culture is by how quickly they can kill someone from increasingly far distances since the first bow

we'll be truly civilized when we can think people to death.