Why do americans always joke and make sarcastic comments but get serious and technical when pic related is posted?

why do americans always joke and make sarcastic comments but get serious and technical when pic related is posted?

Yes, and factor in the vast amount of material and technical aid Hanoi was receiving from the Soviet Union and China.

/thread

Vietnam did literally nothing wrong, they fought a war to liberate themselves of French and American imperialists

Proxy war between the US and USSR.

lmao gooks are so funny

You're a disgrace.

Hi, Xiang.

>A few hundred

Officially we killed close to half a million gook combatants.

Total dead civvies is something like 600k, but that's counting both North and South Vietnamese dead.

>this thread again
Lmao

Autism

Hey americas...

Boo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a fucking joke image, you retard.

You're not a disgrace

I like you

An evil foreign army has left and the people have triumphant.
great vietnam

>muh kd
>we killed more (civilians)
Every time.

Oh look, another leaf obsessed with America.

...

Imagine that's you're some rice farmer. You're having a bad day, your wife is fat, your 7 kids are annoying and crops died because of hail. And then some helis arrive and bunch of fatties get onto your land, and you suddenly remember you have a rifle in your home left from your granpa.
Murricans are lucky some of them made out of there alive.

>Murricans are lucky some of them made out of there alive

>50,000 American casualties versus 1 million gooks
>also some 40,000 Vietnamese have been killed or mangled by unexploded ordnance since the end of the war
>not to mention the generations of Agent Orange babies

I say they suffered more than us desu.

Wait, I read on Watchmen that the US won the war.

Also from Sweden.
this is true

Wow, bombing a million civilian farmers and losing 50k trained soliders to sticks with poo is quite an accomplishment indeed.

>and losing 50k trained soliders
Army training in the Vietnam era was not as good as today's standards, or medical care for wounded soldiers. When you have a conscript army, they tend to be treated as disposable bullet sponges. Note that we lost only 3000 or something men in Iraq with a professional volunteer army and modern battlefield medicine.

You also would not have as many civilian casualties today because of precision-guided bombs instead of the caveman method of cluster-bombing cities.

>believing murrican propoganda
Lmao.

>people ITT white-knighting commies
Please consider suicide.

But cluster bombs are so much more fun to watch

I'm gonna say they're underage. They could also be that Panamian nigger with a bunch of proxies.

>some poor farmers defending their homes against invaders
>le commies
Please, choke on the dick you currently have in your mouth.

>remember Vietnam white boi? I do

It's less about white-knighting yellow reds and more about bantering America tbqh

Last I check North Vietnam was Russian puppet state just like they put commie puppets in my country 1948 to 1989.

>whole

Kind of...but it's complicated...

For those who don't know, he's this dude whose father was some minor government official who lost his job after the CIA evicted Noriega, so he's forever anus hurt at the US and posts rambling, poorly spelled butthurt.

I don't get the butt hurt over pearl harbor the most. It was a military target anyway.

Last I checked up it's not a reason to invade a country and bomb people to oblvionz

Meh, consider that we tried to kick the Frogs out because of nationalism (Hồ Chí Minh was a nationalist, first and foremost). Then i don't think we kicks Americans out because for communism.

These wars are seen as patriotic wars in Vietnam.

Please explain why Russians invade my country and occupy it for 40 years. Please explain what happen in 1968.

Yeh but it's not even good or original bantz.

>get invaded
>protect the invaders in Vietnam
I think I know the answer. It's that you're dumb.

>implying any original content happens on this shithole anyway
I already made thread complaining about how boring and repetitive Sup Forums is. be thankful he didn't post a shart thread. at least Vietnam threads have some interesting /his/ discussion.

We were invited by the VNCH to defend them from Hanoi. Also since we never launched a ground invasion of North Vietnam, the term "invaded" is misleading.

Because they got absolutely destroyed had got sent running with their tail behind their legs.

They also got reminded of how a war against anyone with a modicum of equipment would go for America. Hence today they stick to bombing goat herders in the middle east who are not backed by major powers.

There isn't a lot of "national butthurt" about it. What is there is due to the fact that it was a sneaky backhanded attack by a country who had ambassadors in DC assuring America that errything was fine.
Warfare is always ugly, but the Japanese Empire circa 1930-1945 was especially nasty and flippant regarding conventions of "fair" war.

+15 Putinshekels for this post

It's a solid classic

This. Fuck the USA can't wait til we collapse into separate states.

Vietnam were the real losers in the end because of the massive destruction and loss of life caused by the war, and that they became an impoverished commie shithole.

Supposedly when NVA troops capture Saigon in the spring of 1975, they were stunned at the higher living standards there and the tons of goods for sale in shops, since they'd been told that South Vietnam was this awful gulag where US imperialists enslaved everybody.

When commies win, everyone loses. Want me to post Czechoslovakia's GDP per capital in 1938 and 1990?

>We were invited by the VNCH to defend them from Hanoi.
And I were invited by my neighbor to rape his sister. I'm sure police will take it as a proper excuse.
>Also since we never launched a ground invasion of North Vietnam, the term "invaded" is misleading.
>semantics to the rescue, yay

Wait, wasn't Azerbaijan a part of the USSR?

His dad was probably communist party official.

Yeah probably.

>the beat America starter pack

>can't beat some ricefarmers because they have guns from the USSR
>thought they could actually do anything in a war against the USSR

If the cold war went hot, you Americans wouldn't have lasted a week.

Except South Vietnam was a sovereign country at this point and it was the North Vietnamese who started invading them.

Have a (You)

You're not only dumb, but you possess most dumb trait of all: speaking without knowledge.
Father was a teacher. He never got professor degree because he refused to join communist party.

>was
And it still is.
When they discover oil in our country/region you are doomed.

Oil was discovered before soviet was even a thing, you fag.
>you are doomed.
Yeah, look at norway, how bad it is...

Calm down, i didn't want to be rude. You are right about Norway, but Norway might one of the very few exceptions. Oil brings in money, but not for us normal people. Corruption on all levels will rise, one of men's worst scourges.
Oil is the economy's cocaine, it destroys societies and corrupts everyone

The one time when the USSR could have beaten us in a war was the 1970s when the US military was in disarray following Vietnam. Any other decade of the Cold War, not a chance. A document circulated in the Kremlin in the early 80s painted a defeatist assessment that Moscow could not win the superpower confrontation in the long run, lacking the technological or economic strength of the US, or an appealing, marketable ideology.

That's pretty much blamin a knife because of murder, m8.
Oil is really a great thing, without it we would probably not be that advanced now.
But you're completely right about greed around it. My diploma work was "Alternate power sources and it's influence on oul/gas" industry, and reseach I had to do gave me much about what it means.
Also, sorry for jerk response, sometimes I forget about manners.

And also we could have completely reduced North Vietnam to ash if we'd wanted to. A ground invasion was ruled out early on because of paranoia of Chinese intervention (the Korean War was still fresh in memory in the 1960s).

This is correct. It had everything to do with LBJ and McNamara not wanting a repeat of the Korean War. They assumed if we invaded SRV, the Chinese would definitely intervene and possible the Soviet Union as well. Beijing had issued veiled warnings that they would act to prevent an armed US presence on their border. It's possible they were just bluffing and wouldn't actually do anything, but why take the risk?

US policy in Vietnam was mostly based around two theories: the containment theory and the domino theory. The first was that the US would act to prevent the spread of communism, but let it go in places it was already established. The domino theory held that if South Vietnam fell, there was nothing to stop the entire region of SE Asia from falling to communism.

Hence the ultimate failure of the war effort. We did not want to risk a ground invasion of North Vietnam, but withdrawing from the South would hand them over to the enemy and render the whole effort a failure. Thus the years of a futile containment war.

The Vietnam War had a deep effect on the US military and government--a stalemate had been achieved in Korea and South Vietnam had been lost entirely, a far cry from the triumphant US victories in WWII and earlier conflicts. The argument was that the war effort had been micromanaged by the White House and if LBJ had listened to the generals, we could have won. This POV has been passed down since then and still lingers in the US military today.

It's a speculative question--some generals did advocate for total war on North Vietnam, even a ground invasion. However, the course of the war was dictated by political goals, namely defending South Vietnam. Fear of Chinese and/or Soviet intervention kept us from going all-out.

If we had been able to do what the generals wanted, maybe the war would have come out differently, maybe it wouldn't have. Many military officers certainly told themselves that if they'd been allowed to do it differently, it would have come out differently.

>decimate North Vietnam's infrastructure with more bombs than we'd dropped in WWII
>still can't break this one little country supplied by backwards China
Uh...

We actually destroyed less infrastructure than it's commonly believed, and not a lot of what we did bomb were factories/military installations/whatever. Actually, most of those bombs were dropped on suspected supply paths.

I find the whole "The military could have won in Vietnam if civilian politicians hadn't tied their hands" story to be verging on Dolchstoßlegend territory.

It's hard to say exactly how much of that is true, although the military doesn't like to admit when their strategies failed.

China and the USSR in the late 60s were at each other's throats, and there was a border clash in 1969 that killed 1000 people.

There was something of a contest between the two to supply Hanoi with armaments and military advisers, although North Vietnam received most weaponry and munitions from the USSR due to their much more advanced technology (most Chinese equipment were just clones of Soviet hardware anyway), but China had a much bigger personal stake in defending North Vietnam due to being right on their border.

Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam was small-scale against the US, but they were there, and also North Korea took advantage of the chaos to send waves of infiltrators across the DMZ into South Korea during 1967-69.

Actually, it came out after the fall of the USSR that there were several thousand Soviet troops in North Vietnam, some of which participated in combat actions against the US, and Soviet pilots also shot down a number of US aircraft. The US military almost certainly knew about this, but kept quiet about it.

Soviet support for Hanoi was actually done with a slight bit of reluctance because they didn't completely trust the SRV from an ideological standpoint, and doubted if they were really communists. They also suspected that the North Vietnamese were a Chinese puppet.

Of course they were wrong on those counts. China quickly restored ties with the US in the 70s and Vietnam turned out to not be any friend of Beijing at all. Moreover, Vietnam proved a very reliable Soviet ally, and they still have very amicable relations with Russia to this day.

>Actually, it came out after the fall of the USSR that there were several thousand Soviet troops in North Vietnam

That's nothing. It's estimated that China had close to 170,000 (!) troops in North Vietnam. Supposedly Mao Zedong told Pham Van Dong "I don't understand why we have 100,000 men there helping defend the country, train troops, and maintain infrastructure, yet the Americans have said nothing about it."

Easy--we had good reason not to say anything even though we perfectly well knew about all those troops.

Leaf was right.

Good opinion

>Actually, it came out after the fall of the USSR that there were several thousand Soviet troops in North Vietnam, some of which participated in combat actions against the US, and Soviet pilots also shot down a number of US aircraft

As was true in the Korean War. The Soviets supplied a lot of pilots who flew in aircraft with Chinese and North Korean markings, in fact probably a majority of pilots on the communist side were Soviet.

just a bunch of /k/fags having a circlejerk

kek

>being agaist glorifying the unjustified murder of millions of civilians
>hurr just edgy commies xDDD

+15 Putincoins for this post

Apparently, a total of 320,000 Chinese troops were in North Vietnam at various points during the 1960s. It's pretty hard to hide an army of that size, so you better believe Washington damn well knew they were there. It's hard to say just what Beijing would have done if the US invaded North Vietnam, but they were definitely worried about it and the Sino-Vietnamese border area was strongly fortified during this time. Probably if we invaded, the NVA and government of North Vietnam would retreat into China where they had a safe sanctuary, since we sure weren't going to risk attacking anything on Chinese soil.

It all boils down to a simple non-desire to have a repeat of the Korean War. We lost 135,000 men in that conflict, and the stalemate that ensued also helped the GOP retake the White House for the first time in a generation. China could likely fight us to a standstill again with their almost bottomless pool of manpower.

Also it was assumed that bombing and destroying North Vietnam's infrastructure was enough to compel them to give up the war effort, although this assumption proved false. In any case, direct ground invasion of North Vietnam was considered too politically and militarily risky to attempt.

>"lel, you ruski for not glorifying death XD"

>anyone who is mildly critical of the US is automatically a paid Russian shill

Aren't you supposed to be hiking in the woods, Hillary?

All samefag. All proxying Kremlinbot.

China was engulfed in the Cultural Revolution during that time, correct? Seems like their ability to wage an external war would have been badly compromised.

He's an idiot. Those Chinese troops were in Vietnam because of the American intervention, not the other way around. The Pentagon Papers are publically availible, you can see it for yourself.

Is this what winning looks like?

This is true, but it didn't affect the PLA as much as it would appear, besides China still had a ridiculously huge amount of bodies to throw into battle and a far bigger stomach for casualties than the US, also the totalitarian Chinese government did not have to answer to the voting public about the human/material cost of a war (one of the big things that wrecked the US war effort in Vietnam--the simple fact that we're a democracy).

My dad knew a guy who took a Vietnamese bride over there (she was actually Hmong, but w/e).

Cutting off the Ho Chi Minh Trail should have been a primary objective and the need was understood at the time. However it was never done. I have never heard the official explanation for this. Presumably it would have required even more troops than were deployed to Vietnam and there was always the concern about provoking the Chinese or even the Russians. Might it have been possible to accomplish with the troop strength present in Vietnam in 1967? Leave the counter-insurgency to the Saigon forces and concentrate US forces on cutting the HCM Trail? Occupation of the Laos Panhandle would likely lead the NVA to move into the rest of Laos with their Pathet Lao allies. Also, how was this to be justified at home? The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was used by President Johnson as the basis for sending US combat forces to Vietnam but invading Laos might have been a tough sell.

We lay off with the napalm, they let us lay with their women. It's a good trade.

This.
The federal government is just a bunch of scumbags.

>were aided with inferior soviet and chinese technology
>this is an excuse for americans

Henry Kissinger in his "On China" book claims that journalist Edgar Snow was told by Mao Zedong in a 1965 interview that China would not engage the US in a direct conflict unless we actually invaded their soil, and they weren't going to die for the sake of North Vietnam. Of course, they would still dispatch troops there to maintain infrastructure and provide training and logistic support for the NVA.

Soviet equipment at that time, while not as high tech as the US military, was still definitely something to be reckoned with, and the USSR was far from a caveman-tier country technologically. I mean, they were launching stuff into space.

that's funny cos they did exactly that in Korea

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA


AMERIFATS GOT FUCKED.... BY..... PFFUPFJHAH ... RICE FARMERS... AAHAHSHJAHAHAAHAHJAHAHAA