Why did the America empire lose to rice farmers?

Why did the America empire lose to rice farmers?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ugJ_59_adp8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th_century_wars
youtube.com/watch?v=hu1RgBZR40A
youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency
reuters.com/article/us-vietnamusa-navy-idUSBREA4E06R20140515
youtube.com/watch?v=Jh_WmBAGRcQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Commie infiltration of the domestic front forced them to pull out

didn't
golden triangle etc

>American
>Empire

why do people keep making these threads?

To remind you that the US has lost all it's wars since 1945

Once Australia pulled out it was only a matter of time until America lost. America has won zero wars since Australia was founded without Australia's help

As long as our officers and troops perform tours of duty limited to one year, they will remain dilettantes in war, and tourists in Vietnam. As long as cold beer, hot food, rock 'n' roll, and all the other amenities remain expected norm, our conduct of the war will only gain impotence. We need fewer men, and better. If they were committed, this war could be won with a fourth of our present force.

Nice meme.

Cause of the war coverage
cause of weak ads civilians complaining
cause of pussy as army soliders can't kill as good as marines
cause politics
cause nigger

Didn't they teach you this shit in history class?

We didn't lose in Korea. It was a tie.

Losing to those farmers just proved our point. An armed population is nearly impossible to defeat, even by a force as powerful as the USA. That's why we need the 2nd amendment.

Oh here he is, the resident Kraut who pulls this shit every thread. I mean let's not forget the time Germany lost two wars trying to prove their superiority.

Gooks
>Average IQ: 105
Crackers
>Average IQ: 100

Because there was Russian and Chinese soldiers doing everything they can for the Communist Vietnam. You really don't want to know how much shit got carried through River Mekong from Laos etc. But the joke is that you can't match Russian soldiers.

Americans didn't lose anything, our commie (((democrat))) party once again tried to hand our hard won victory over to fellow commies or tyrants.

youtube.com/watch?v=ugJ_59_adp8

>w-we didnt lose, we were j-joking!

Because the American left made the war politically unwinnable. As per usual they're nothing but traitors. If you think the Americans lost because they were outgunned by Vietnamese farmers you're retarded, it was only when America stopped funding the south that the shot hit the fan

Rules of engagement. Talk to any vet

same reason the british lost to pitch smelters

pic related is what a Vietnamese person looks like after living a generation in the US, they gain weight, they lose the dark color of their skin, and they clearly look Chinese. Vietnamese have a history of being attacked/oppressed by the Chinese, guerilla warfare is part of their culture

>lost
>made sure the communism didn't spread more
>vietnam became our later trade ally anyway
>funded military contracts
>made china waste resources all while starving
"lost"

not trained to fight in guerrilla warfare, jungle warfare, etc. Had no vision at all and military was usually undisciplined and disorganised, unlike the very fervent mentality of the NVA.

> Ran out of napalm

The "farmers" were actually a highly organized, highly motivated insurgent force who knew the lay of the land like the backs of their hands. Not to mention they had a highway that regularly carried tens of thousands of pounds worth of supplies that the Americans weren't allowed to disrupt.

On the other hand, the Americans were in an environment that was totally alien to them, had no way to distinguish the enemy from civilians, and many of them had no idea why the were even fighting, thus having no morale and no motivation to win.

This. As an Australian, I can say that we are the deciding factor in all conflicts the west will face.

America won the Vietnam War. The Democrats lost it by forbidding Nixon to give air support to the South Vietnamese who were being invaded under a broken treaty.

The Democrats "lost" the war as sabotage against the American people. The blood is on their hands. The party will end.

I don't know, how did the Mongols, Chinese, and French lose to said rice farmers?

>earrings?
Check
>Trigger discipline?
...

>vietnam owes the U.S. $56 billion in trade and weapons sales

We didn't lose dumbass.

Actually, Vietnam lost because they became commies.
Better dead than red, boys.

tunnels + guerilla warfare

We killed more of your grandpas than AIDS, then gave your grandmas that Yankee dick on the way out.

>But the joke is that you can't match Russian soldiers.

You should do that again, fucking Krauts are a menace.

Because we allowed ourselves to lose. All according to (((plan)))

No, we lost, but that just proves everything America stands for is right.

France mislead the US about the relevance of the conflict because they didn't want to lose their colony. The US entered the conflict for reasons that didn't even really exist. This lead to lack of overarching strategy, and a lack of local support. Jungle warfare complicated things, and the fact that we had no reason to be there sapped our will.

The rice farmers you are talking about were defeated if you look at it in a military engagement sense... but the US lost the war because we had no true desire or understanding of the conflict, and left when it became more apparent that what we were fighting for never truly was a possibility. Hell, we should have sided with the North, they modeled their initial documents after our Declaration of Independence... but at the time we were scared of Communism everywhere because we thought it was all globally linked/Russian controlled.

Where are Euros being told this copypasta?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th_century_wars

>few hundred
Please, muslims all over the world were going to Afghanistan to fight the soviets.

Nah, it was a victory. We stepped in to defend the South.

I love the smell of dead communists in the morning. Reminds me of, victory.

Board sliding.

>Why did the America empire lose to rice farmers?

The US lost to a complex combination of factors including the war being a worthless idea of zero strategic value, the necessity to protect Europe and not bleed troops from it for Viet Nam, the determination of the Viets to fight forever (after outlasting French/Japs/French recently and outlasting China, their real enemy, for much of their history).

Sup Forums is mostly too young to know much about the war except memes and too ideological to be genuinely curious. OP is trolling evidenced by his wording. Too bad or he might become curious too.

The way the war unfolded does no one in the West, including the US military, any credit. Blameshifting abounds. Many vets who only saw their very narrow part of the war know little of the rest, and assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

>Lost
Trust me. We didnt pull out because of their superior fighting thats for sure.

Please explain to me how the Vietcong was anything close to a useful fighting force post Tet Offensive.

This. My oleman was a marine nam vet 67 68 69. Heavy combat record, 2 purple hearts and a ton of other metals and ribbons. He said he killed alot of 6+ feet tall gooks. Regular chinese army. And russia just recently admitted to trsing and arming commie gooks.

tunnels + guerilla warfare

>a fucking toothpaste

Fuck you, my skin's so dark people think I'm a Mexican-Chink hybrid.

youtube.com/watch?v=hu1RgBZR40A

We are unwilling to do what must be done.

>Trust me. We didnt pull out because of their superior fighting thats for sure.

The casualty metric you cite works differently than you appear to assume. They could AFFORD the losses because they were fighting for their own country. Americans weren't fighting for anything, unless dying for Diem (who we greenlighted a coup against after he wore out his welcome), Ky or Thieu was a worth sacrifice....

The gooks had a slogan, "two, three, many Viet Nams!". They knew what was up. Americans have only fierce pride. We are not a historically literate nation and the 1960s was much worse. Lyndon Johnson was a hick political hack.

Please.

Tunnels + guerilla warfare didn't work for the Japanese during WWII.

It's tunnels + guerilla warfare + friendly population local + lack of will on the side of your enemies + no clear victory conditions

>. The US entered the conflict for reasons that didn't even really exist.

Impossible,

Because it was the first major conflict with de-segregated forces.

Killed morale, chain of command and coherence.

It would, however, be fair to say our governments blundered into it out of gross willfull ignorance. We had the opportunity to support the Viet Minh after the OSS engaged them in WWII, but Gaullist cock was much too tasty for that to happen.

How many wars have you won you fucking nazi

THIS.

If we had just let our troops kill anything that moves, it would've been over in a year.

You gunna go somewhere with that?

Our understanding was that we were fighting a global net of communism. Such a net latter proved not to exist, and we used that knowledge to open relations with China (who had long had friction with Russia).

*a few hundred thousand including foreign fights with US-supplied heavy artillery.

White officers ran the show and CHOSE the initial attrition strategy. Consider that for a moment. The enemy had infinite gooks and China could have escalated precisely as it did in the Korean war. The US had no out because if China entered the war we would have to rape NATO for personnel leaving it open to the Red Army.

Strategy doesn't exist in a vacuum.

We were defending the rice farmers, cuck. The NVA was a perfectly well equipped army. Also, guerilla tactics that were better than ours really fucked us.

>alternate facts.

Vietnam (North and South communist forces) Military Deaths were between 500,000 and 1,000,000, several hundred thousand wounded.

South Vietnamese anti-communist forces did most of the fighting, ended up with 200,000-300,000 military dead, over 1 million wounded.

Total killed and wounded of anti-communists were higher than communists.


War ended with America realizing that it could not win the war and even if it stayed there fighting the best they could hope to achieve is a stalemate.

Just because they never lost any single battle on a tactical level doesn't mean that they didn't lose the war due to poor strategy.

American education might help you win arguments against other braindamaged Americans, but in the rest of the world we use verifiable facts.

>If we had just let our troops kill anything that moves, it would've been over in a year.

No, China would have joined battle as it did in Korea. Your historical illiteracy is showing. China would have gained by US escalation. Russia sent supplies because keeping that fight going reduced the forces the Soviet Union would have needed to invade Europe.

Korea was a stalemate, and we won the Gulf War.

The North Vietnam army had to latest training, weapons, and aircraft supplied by the USSR, but pol still thinks they're just rice farmers.

And of course even considering all of that, still

>We were defending the rice farmers, cuck.

You REALLY need to check your history. Try the Strategic Hamlet Program for starters.

The rice farmers are doing fine. Hint, they aren't forcibly relocated away from their ancestral graves into de facto concentration camps.

>a tie.

So was the Vietnam war.

Dude Laos and Cambodia went Commie too. What are you talking about?
And the US wasn't facing just rice farmers either, both graphics are retarded b8.

The bulk of the fighting in South Vietnam was fought by South Vietnamese guerrillas. Were they armed and trained by the north? Yes. Doesn't mean that they weren't farmers to begin with and went back to being farmers after the war. They were farmers.

Also the North as far as aircraft were concerned were virtually ineffective to the point of irrelevance.

Half our armed forces were keeping your mom in line at the time.

Fuck off, the program was based of a successful model from Malaya.

It's "failure" was because the guy in charge of it was a literal Communist mole.

Only if you take the "American vatnik" meme and forget the context. War is never just war.

The gooks wore out the US, Nixon settled for terms he could have gotten in 1968, and the American people got tired of body bags coming home for NOTHING. Nearly sixty thousand dead and many more wounded meant most Americans knew someone affected by the war.

*unzips dick

And they were gutted as a force after Tet.

PAVN won the war, the Viet Cong didn't conquer the South.

>Total killed and wounded of anti-communists were higher

That's impossible to say because it depends on if North deaths are closer to 500K or 1 million.

The US could've won if they simply wanted to, Vietnamese weren't even a factor. If you can handle facts, watch this youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk

also

>he doesn't know aussies lost in Vietnam too

>he doesn't know aussies are the only country in history to lose a war to animals

>The bulk of the fighting in South Vietnam was fought by South Vietnamese guerrillas.

By the end of the war most of the VC was actually NVA soldiers infiltrated into the south. The VC ran out of local manpower because the US killed them all.

The US was fighting a defensive war and wasn't willing to invade the North. Probably because it borders China and the last time the US got to the Chinese border in a war the Chinks got involved. They swarmed across the Yalu river into North Korea and caused a lot of trouble. So it was a war of attrition and the Commies didn't have to worry about public opinion because they just execute dissenters. So the US government folded to domestic pressure and pulled out.

fug that's small

democracies have a problem with hanging around forever. especially when bodies are rolling in. When it really counts well level your whole though.

>Fuck off, the program was based of a successful model from Malaya.

What works in one war doesn't necessarily do so in the next. Malaya didn't have the spectacularly incompetent, corrupt and unpatriotic governments South Viet Nam did to the end.

The Malayan conflict was tiny compared to Viet Nam:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

>In the end, the conflict involved a maximum of 40,000 British and other Commonwealth troops, against a peak of about 7–8,000 communist guerrillas.

firepower versus tactics, tactics won

*country

Because Americans are the weakest race

>lose to rice farmers
Armed rice farmers.

If someone doesn't want you in their country and they have the means to make your life hell, you won't stick around forever.

Democracies have a problem when nothing is at stake.

Subsequent history proved nothing was at stake and the war had purely negative outcomes for the US.

reuters.com/article/us-vietnamusa-navy-idUSBREA4E06R20140515

Nixon didnt settle for anything. The North was winning against Johnson's policy. Johnson/McNamara was terrified to attack NV. Nixon changed this. Nixon bombed NV into the stone age. There were no targets left worth bombing at the end of Lineback II.

The NVA practically begged for peace negotiations. Nixon was quick to draw an end -- of course. and a settlement 'deal' was struck.

youtube.com/watch?v=7hqYGHZCJwk

And it was working at first. Once it stopped being a test program and got handed to Phạm Ngọc Thao he did everything he could to fuck up the program because he was a Communist agent.

Lost the rematch.

Guerrilla tactics and demoralization from the inside state. And also because of hippies that forced the USA in pulling out all assets in Vietnam.

...

>Why did the American empire lose to rice farmers?

The sad truth is they wanted more.That era 60's/70's made some of the worst men for america of the 19th century.

Then you have that hippy BS handed to there kid's who in turn fell in love with more degeneracy.

Then they had kid's.

they are the SJW white hating cuck's you see today.So blinded by the BS they had learn from there coward fathers,and them there father's.

Nixon was a faggot for agreeing PAVN didn't have to give up occupied territory.

It's hard to win a war when you're not allowed to kill anybody.

Because we weren't in righteous unison behind it.

youtube.com/watch?v=Jh_WmBAGRcQ

Jews

>cuckmany winning any war

it was a proxy war with china shitfag

>Your historical illiteracy is showing.

You being a nosy douchebag is showing. Sorry, not everyone can know ever little fucking detail in history, some of us have realized that History degrees don't pay.
China and Vietnam actually went at it each afterwards BTW.
In reality, we actually did kill tons of incident people (as we have in all wars). Killing everything has worked a few times such as firebombing Germany and nuking Japan. Hell, we killed the plants with agent orange. My point is that RULES OF ENGAGEMENT has fucked us many a time. One of these days, we are gonna need to abandon that shit to win a war. Think outside the box for once.

>Why did the America empire lose to rice farmers?
Robert Macnamara