Discuss

Was the Vietnam war justified?

Personally yes and no. Yes, to stop communism, because look, now all the young dumb kids want communism, no because it wasnt really our war.

Did Americans really get BTFO or is a meme?

We got rekt by jungle niggers

no

but we killed a lot of gooks and saw what it was like if we actually tried to fight a whole continent's worth of commies

The Jews did this.

If only for the movies.

>First Post Best Post
It was a core strategy of our foreign policy at the time to stem the growth of communism in south east asia, but should probably have been fought primarily as a proxy war like the Chinese and Russians treated it for the most part.

The way it was fought no. If you go into a war you conquer, not play police. The same mistake we make over and over.

Walking around the south patrolling a jungle and villages is stupid.

It's like one of those multiplayer objective-based games where we had a super good K/D ratio, but we didn't cap the objective point in Hanoi.

We had vastly better kill ratios but that didn't matter to the VietCong. The norks were just willing to cull their population because at the end of the day, we weren't going to win an extremely unpopular war of attrition half way across the world against a regime propped up by both the USSR and China.
"You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first" - Ho Chi Minh

BTFO due to incompetent command and reluctance to wage a real war, not out of lack of ability or resources. But yes, it was a pathetic loss.

Imagine beating up a little Asian kid over and over but he keeps getting back up. You're clearly winning but why won't he just give up?

Everyone around you is watching. The little asian kids nose us broke and bleeding bad but no matter how much you hit him he just won't give up.

Eventually you're fist start to hurt and yoi don't want to hit him anymore so you leave. But the fucker still standing there, smiling through his broken, bloodied teeth

Vietnam was a whole fucked up situation from many years before the war. I read Ho Chi Minh only adopted communism because we refused to support him on multiple occasions since he was fighting the French. It's a real shame honestly cause you would figure on us burgers being sympathetic with people struggling against colonialism. Lots of people died, and Vietnam ended up communist.

If you stopped being a faggot and blew his head off with a shotgun though, you would have won.

>fight against rice farmer with ak-47
>bragging about it

what a fucking joke.

>literally red orchestra 2 on iwo jima

Checked

Also why does the Medal of Honor look like a pentagram?

Forgot pic

i think it was like 55000 casualties for over a million but we withdrew so you can be the judge.

Not really, in some ways we actually came ahead of the game. For starters it was a way to test next generation weapons against the soviets equivalent. But instead of fighting a disciplined force, we fought meat puppets. This would result in the fuck yeah murrica min-maxing that went on during the 80's. F14's, Abrams, the stinger missile, the M249 and improved M16's.

GULF
OF
TONKIN

One thing we didn't learn from WWII is that once you mow down one wave of commies, another wave will take its place.

What we should have done is gone total war and invaded the entire region, but we were tangled up in red tape. In the end thousands of Americans got killed for a bunch of gooks that were rightfully ungrateful because we accomplished nothing and destroyed their country. The whole situation was fucked and if the French weren't incompetent surrender monkeys none of this would have ever happened.

Killing savage gooks is always justified

We killed more of them than they did us, we just didn't destroy their will to fight and therefore we lost. There is a key difference you need to know, though. We lost because we weren't willing to win, we held every fucking card and simply refused to play the. We could have bombed the North into submission, but "muh morality" hippies won out and we decided to stupidly face them on an even playing field. No such thing as "morality" in war, in my opinion. War is a contest to see who can cause the most widespread death and destruction, by bringing morality and feelings into it you basically add rules to the contest that severely hamper your ability to win.

Is this horribly inaccurate? If not I don't see where you guys are getting the idea that North Vietnam suffered WAY more casualties to the point of saying 10:1. At worst this shows 2:1 but more likely 1:1.

No we got rekt by communist at home

In terms of the actual battles, lol fuck no. We got cucked by faggots at home and the fact that there was shitloads of red tape and legality issues.

58k americans compared to 1 million gooks.

I also don't think that lists shit like starvation and disease that became widespread.

because it is one? a pentagram is a shape, if you mean that it's an occult symbol then i don't know, this country and its leaders both the freemasons of the early periods and the jews of today are obsessed with the occult.

Are you actually counting the South Viet jungle gooks as "Americans", or are you just unable to read?

Because they're talking about US vs VC, not the entirety of both sides.

I'm looking at the overall picture, not just America vs North Vietnamese.

I mean, it would be silly to do otherwise. You can't claim every North Vietnamese casualty as an American kill.

Unless there are direct statistics about how many Americans killed VCs, and vice versa, it's an argument that has no facts or basis behind it.

I honestly don't care if the government wanted to go to Vietnam and stop communism. Go fucking nuts.

The real problem was them FORCING people to go and fucking DIE

No just us imperialism

yeah i'm sure the south vietnamese were really involved with those kill rates

Alright, true, but you should also look at the long lasting impact of say Line Backer. Vietnam's infrastructure was bombed to nothing because they refused to come to Nixon's bargaining table. The result lead to wide spread famine and malnutrition that haunted them into the 90's. We were still killing them about 18 years ago, only in 2012 have they begun any clean up and its after we spent 98 million in relief funds.

1. Nice music was created

2. Nice movies were created

3. God-tier atmosphere was created

4. Other cultural things such as hippies, e.t.c

Seems pretty culturally justified to me.

Yes, but nobody ever talks about exactly why. It basically boils down to this: the prevailing schools of MAD thought (from the US side primarily out of RAND) predicted that a foe like the Soviets would simply slow step proxy conflicts to stay just barely sub-nuclear.

The main concern was that, performed over a long time horizon and around the globe, that the US would gradually be encroached upon by hostile proxy forces.

In the MAD thinking of the time, the US needed to fight a 100% all-in, conventional-only fight to a political draw while inflicting lopsided human casualties. The net effect would deter this line of reasoning from becoming Soviet doctrine.

Every war is justified as long as you're on the winning side.

Lost the war
Won their hearts

Didn't get BTFO though
agent orange and the kill ratio will attest to that

No, it was an illegal engagement and a colossal waste for anyone who wasn't profiting monetarily.

Or you could take Chomsky's route and say destroying the region was the purpose all along.

> Destroying the region was the purpose all along.

Of course it was you stupid fuck. The US had to prove that the Soviets can't simply waltz in wherever they like and set up some commie proxy shit without serious repercussions. The US was not going to allow repeated instances of this and felt like it had to set a clear precedent: "if we say don't and you do, expect to get fucked hard, and we don't care how many men we lose in the process".

Ideally when you're setting this precedent, you do it in a place that's essentially disposable and does not change any strategic balance when it's lost, because again, the nature of the conflict was deterrence and brute force punishment.

killing communists is always justified

what did america do for the flips that they love us so much?

>to stop communism

If communism is as bad as America says it is then surely it would fail on its own without America's "help".

America claims to support democracy yet they will literally support brutal dictators who slaughter women and children as long as they're capitalists.

We were winning until our own people fucked everything up because they couldn't handle seeing war footage on TV.
Then we pulled out, and of course, south vietnam being filled with incompetent retards, lost to the north when they broke the Paris Peace Treaty.
Then 40 years later everyone acts like we lost even though we won literally every battle and left the country on a winning note.

Exactly, famalan. Now go jerk out that aggression.

I can understand all of those except Germany and Greece.

I mean, i can still kinda understand Germany, but are they actually ma over the war? Or that we have such large military bases over there?

And what the fuck did we ever do to Greece?

> if we say don't and you do, expect to get fucked hard,
> and we don't care how many men we lose in the process

I should also have mentioned, "we're also willing to start the conflict under false pretenses so that we control our entry and timing, not you."

The ridiculousness of the Crimea thing by Putin should be seen as a remix of this exact principle against the same foe (ok, well ostensibly NATO this time and Russia, not the Soviets) for the exact same reasons (unease with NATO expansionary tendencies).

Remember also that Putin was born in the Soviet Union and is ex-KGB.

No and a lot of good Americans got duped and killed, those poor bastards got sucked into the shitstorm of their time.

The reason you're a stupid fuck is because you believe it was "an illegal engagement" as if that matters in the slightest. Virtue signalling at its finest.

Shocking you would resort to name calling while contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

Not really. We weren't about to combat the French after liberating them in WWII.
And the US has never given a fuck about people "struggling". We only intervene when we have something to gain, and we had absolutely nothing to gain by intervening in south east asia.

Winning was not the objective. The war was not abandoned because of TV, but because it had already accomplished the goal-- make the cost of conventional commie proxy war too high in both money and lives.

Communism is fucking horrible for the avergae people. But of course, while the people starve, the government and military completely ignore it and concentrate literally all their spending on aggravating the west.
North Korea is obviously a horribly failed attempt at communism, yet they still manage to be a menace and semi-threat.

It was huge waste by incompetent leaders, same as Iraq but atleast in iraq sandniggers deserved it.

NK just a pawn buffer state.
Only reason they are around is because china doesnt want the US on their boarder

It depends.

I'd like to say no, as it was simply a continuation of the second indochinese war that the french and their cronies in the south dumped in our laps and demanded we fix. The french left NATO integrated command merely a year later, after being BTFO by the NVA.

Knowing our commitment to the domino theory, we had to act, but man... We acted in the dumbest ways possible, and Johnson was entirely to blame for it, like him arbitrarily deciding bomb targets over a fucking sandwich at lunch time in his board room, and then calling a draft for what was ostensibly a fucking police action for god's sake.

I'd say that it wasn't unnecessary, but it wasn't justified either.

Our commitment in vietnam led to other nations in SE Asia to police, contain or destroy their communist elements, chiefly the Phillipines.

Obviously not.

Look where it got us, injit.

No, Communism helped Vietnam and it still works fine for them today.

The good guys won. America needs to learn to fuck off.

Should have pointed that out from the start, spergo. Have issues with basic conversation?

You can always go leave to some other shithole if you can't handle name calling, you hypocritical shitstain.

> Attempting to save face
> Failing to save face

Thanks for your contributions here-- trotting out the classic leftist "muh illegal" then a quote from Chomsky.

Back to plebbit with you.

> Communism helped Vietnam

What are the boat people?

Have you been there? It's almost brutally capitalistic in practice in CURRENT YEAR.

The wealth distribution that goes on basically is to prevent civil strife since selling fruit by the roadway and drying corn in the sun is still the only skills that a certain older segment of the population have.

Worth pointing out the resources the Chinese poured into Vietnam werent available for other Communist uprisings in the Asian area at the same time.

Borneo/Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri lanka, India, Thailand and more.

We laugh at the "domino theory", but consider if Vietnam had been rolled over early and China had been able to use those supplies elsewhere.

Vietnam was a global "win" in an odd way, while it was going on most of the Communist groups in other countries were wrecked.

South Vietnamese who ran away from commies.

> Just "ran away"
> Does not mention the re-education camps, the actual death camps and the forced displacement of nearly a million South Vietnamese urban residents upon "liberation", sending these people to mountain areas to "farm for the people"

We slapped there shit but with gorilla warfare the only way to win is to exterminate the local population like the terrorist harbouring insects they are.

no

>rice farmers trained by the soviets and chinese
Even a rice nigger can learn how to operate a firearm.