Damn! How'd I ever get the impression that the North Vietnamese, aided by the Viet Cong, won that war and drove the Americans out of that part of Indo-China? Must have been that lying son of a bitch Walter Cronkite who made me think such totally wrong thoughts.dittman said:
Current Israeli/Lebanese conflict
- Thread starter gravitas
- Start date
Right. But surely the "peace" in Iraq was a false one.JustAGuy said:
A million people were killed in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War. It took two years to extinguish all the oil fires Saddam set ablaze in Kuwait. The remains of three hundred thousand people are estimated held in Iraq's mass graves. Over a hundred thousand Khurds were massacred, whole villages like Halabja gassed with chemical weapons, uncounted numbers forcibly relocated in a program of "Arabization." Two hundred thousand Shiites were executed in retaliation for smashed uprisings which ensued after the Gulf War. The entire Marsh Arab civilization, perhaps the oldest on Earth, all but destroyed by Saddam's regime, the ancient marshes drained.
I don't want to nit pick Saddam's governance. 20-20 hindsight and all. But the apparent harmony imposed by dictators is surely a phony one. It's paid for by the routine culling of thousands of suspected disloyal and their families by secret police, and the occasional mass killing like the destruction of Hama by Hafez Assad. But you can get a cup of coffee.
We have so many examples of failure in the region, and so few of compelling success. The inability to use effective force frames the problem. Critics of US policy often decry its every military action, and yet dictators such as Saddam or Assad are largely excused. Machiavelli wrote about this situation: leaders, fearful of appearing tyranical or illiberal, will wield too little force to establish order, and hence wind up creating anarchy.
Last edited:
A common myth. The US military is well equipped, but just because a weapon was made in America doesn't mean it's the best weapon. There is a difference between being the best equipped and being well equipped. I would argue that for recce and surviellence on the ground the best vehicle for it is the Coyote used by Canada, built by GM of Canada and based on a chassis created by MOWAG of Switzerland.westwoody said:
And this why Americans desperately need to break out of the box of a two-party system and have an effective multi-party system.dittman said:
2-3 thousand years ago whitey wasn't in NA. The Vikings didn't arrive untila round 1000 AD and they didn't stay long.dittman said:
dittman said:
The constant bashing of what Kerry obtained in Vietnam seemed to me to be not only attacking him but also the Purple Heart. And let's remember the glorious military service records of Bush and company. What does the US military call shitheads like Bush, chickenhawks?
I'm no fan of Kerry, but at least the guy went to Vietnam while a drunk fratboy fuckhead like Bush was supposed to fly F-102 Daggers over Arkansas.
And damn right I would have love to have seen Kerry's record, just like I would like to see Bush's record, especially the MISSING SIX MONTHS!
Clinton lies about getting a BJ and he's impeached. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc lie about going to war and they are so getting off scot fucking free. What a country!dittman said:
Every war the US has been in since 1975 has involved volunteer enlistees.dittman said:
Have I screamed anti-semitism at you?dittman said:
Let's face it, Israel can be, has been, and is acting like a fucking bully. That's not to look the other way to what Hezbollah is doing. ANY country has the right to defend itself. However when it involves rampaging through another country that is still trying to put itself back together from 30 years of conflict, I have to feel for the Lebanese on this one. They have been crapped on by Israel, Syria, the PLO, and Hezbollah long enough. And with that said, I understand Hezbollah was created out of a need for the minority Shia in southern Lebanon to defend themselves against their oppressors, but terrorism ain't the answer.
Yo metoo113 and JustAGuy
You are confused. Dittman was SPECIFICALLY referring to the Tet Offensive and not the entire war. There is no doubt that despite losing many times more people than the US, the communist forces of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, that the latter two won the war. However they scored a big surprise in launching the Tet offensive because they were seen as all but finished with finally the war seeming to have an end. With the Tet Offensive it was clear the US was in for several years more fighting, despite overcoming the initial surprise and laying a pasteing on VC and North Vietnamese forces.
So for you two to confuse winning a battle with winning a war is like saying Germany won WW1 and WW2.
You are confused. Dittman was SPECIFICALLY referring to the Tet Offensive and not the entire war. There is no doubt that despite losing many times more people than the US, the communist forces of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, that the latter two won the war. However they scored a big surprise in launching the Tet offensive because they were seen as all but finished with finally the war seeming to have an end. With the Tet Offensive it was clear the US was in for several years more fighting, despite overcoming the initial surprise and laying a pasteing on VC and North Vietnamese forces.
So for you two to confuse winning a battle with winning a war is like saying Germany won WW1 and WW2.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time in my life that I've been confused or wrong, dirtydan. But Dittman said that the tet offensive was such a smashing defeat for the vc that they ceased to be an effective fighting force. I don't believe that to be true and a revisionist view of history doesn't make it so.
I've always thought that the Tet Offensive is the proof to the arguement that you can't win a war if the population doesn't support you.JustAGuy said:
The Americans destroyed a large standing army, their equipment and most of their trained cadre.
The VC/NVA was able to recruit from the population and continue to field an effective fighting force.
Sort of like Iraq.
The problem with people like Rumsfelt is that they don't learn from history. Rumsfelt had personal experiance with what happened in Vietnam, but didn't think it necessary to aggressively clear arms caches out of Iraq.
Last edited:
Historically, people support wars in their early stages, and support declines over time, particularly if the war is not perceived to be going well. Both Vietnam and Iraq fit this profile. Both wars enjoyed about 70% support during early stages.sdw said:
The Tet Offensive showed that perception is more important than reality. Certainly this is true of politics, and America was defeated not on the battlefield, but by domestic politics. The media at the time portrayed Tet as a defeat for American forces. Subsequent scholarship has shown that Tet was an overwhelming military victory for the US and its allies. If it's on television, it must be true. And on television, America was losing the war.
Johnson's poll numbers dropped 12% right after Tet, from 48% approval to 36%. Had the media accurately reported the implications of Tet, public support would have likely rallied on news of the victory.
The parallel here is that the media consistently portrays America as losing the war, that Iraq is falling into hopeless civil war. Whether this is true is difficult to assess.
Jeepers, well I'll just keep my trap shut, sir. Sir, yes, SIR! I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the situation and your understanding that America was the victim of traitors within her own borders and that if it wasn't for that pesky anti-war movement, they'd still be propping up some corrupt puppet government in South Viet Nam. I certainly have no trouble whatsoever believing that Ho Chi Minh was about ten times smarter than Henry Kissinger.sparkymacker said:
All's fair in war. Superpowers are seldom defeated on the battlefield. America was defeated by psychology, by propaganda, by its own internal divisions, fears, and self-doubts. I can't blame our enemies for pursuing a winning strategy.JustAGuy said:
Ironically, Vietnam has opened up significantly, and eagerly builds trade relations with the US and its trading partners. Eventually our ideas succeeded in propagating throughout Asia, even if not through military means.
If America is going to achieve its objectives in the Middle East, it needs to develop greater resilience in the face of bad news.
jeez i have got to learn how to type and spell i am god awful at it. First i would like to say thank you to DD and SWD for clarifying my last post. you bot did a good job at it, but i didnt say what i said to refight the viety nam war, that was a zillion years ago. Let it suffice to say that I think john kerry is slime.
But the question i asked still remains, do you think hesbollah and by extension Iran and syria miscalculatted on how hard isreal would hit back and that hezbollah will cease to be an effective fighting force or at some future date because of the pounding they are taking right now, that when syria and or iran ask them to do something mean and nasty for them again they will tell them to shove it.
But the question i asked still remains, do you think hesbollah and by extension Iran and syria miscalculatted on how hard isreal would hit back and that hezbollah will cease to be an effective fighting force or at some future date because of the pounding they are taking right now, that when syria and or iran ask them to do something mean and nasty for them again they will tell them to shove it.
Wait for the next miscalculation. It's gonna hurt.
Many wars are the result of serious miscalculations (often by both sides). The Korean War is a classic example of the West being distracted by the Berlin situation and the reconstruction of Japan only to then blunder into a major escalation on the Korean Penninsula.
We see the same in the Middle East. First, the US Administration completely misjudges the resources required to subdue Iraq and restore order. Israel acts unilaterally over and over again with the tacit approval of the US Administration and eventually over-reacts to the provocation of the kidnappings. Iran is ready to retaliate for any move on Syria. And so on and so on...
Too much testosterone and too little real leadership. I wouldn't wish this mess on my worst enemy...
Many wars are the result of serious miscalculations (often by both sides). The Korean War is a classic example of the West being distracted by the Berlin situation and the reconstruction of Japan only to then blunder into a major escalation on the Korean Penninsula.
We see the same in the Middle East. First, the US Administration completely misjudges the resources required to subdue Iraq and restore order. Israel acts unilaterally over and over again with the tacit approval of the US Administration and eventually over-reacts to the provocation of the kidnappings. Iran is ready to retaliate for any move on Syria. And so on and so on...
Too much testosterone and too little real leadership. I wouldn't wish this mess on my worst enemy...
I think you hit the nail on the head there Dittman. The Syrians / Iranians did not expect the Israeli to lash out like this. I believe the Israeli won't stop now until they have effectively neutralised Hesbollah.dittman said:
Talk is one thing, if there's one thing that Middle Eastern leaders can do, it's make threats. Is Iran actually willing to engage Israel in all out war? If so, they would have already attacked, or are preparing an attack.xmy556 said:
At present, Iran cannot even refine adequate supplies of gasoline from its own oil. It has to export the crude and re-import the refined gasoline. Unless our intelligence has badly missed a total overhaul of their military capability, they would lose that war badly.
At some point, Israel has to decide if war with Iran is either immanent or inevitable. If so, it should strike while it holds maximum advantage, rather than wait for Iran to develop a significant arsenal of nuclear missiles.
My first reaction to this whole fiasco was that Israel was over-reacting bigtime to the kidnap of 2 soldiers. It made absolutely no sense to me. Now, however, I think it's starting to make a bit of sense. Hezbollah is Israel's Taleban. This onslaught of violence into Lebanon is an attempt to strike at their heart and erradicate them for good. This is an "enough-is-enough" attack, and I think that Israel will persist in this offensive until they see their goal accomplished. Hezbollah seem to have caught Israel offguard with some new weaponry. They can fight back, and have been with marked success. The big concern here, IMHO, is that the back-and-forth volleys will escalate to a point where one or the other involved parties start to attempt to draw other countries into the fray in order to gain the upper hand. If that happens, and they succeed, that's when I'll start to get worried.
I'm pretty sure that Hezbollah was aware of how Israel would react and what force Israel can bring to bear.dittman said:
Hezbollah has three objectives:
1. Israel kills enough Lebanese that they can unify Lebanon under Hezbollah leadership.
2. The number of Lebanese killed will justify the further war by Hezbollah against Israel.
3. That the number of Lebanese killed and the amount of Lebanese territory annexed by Israel will result in Arms, Money and Cadre from other Nations for Hezbollah to use in their war against Israel.
I believe that Hezbollah is being used in an indirect manner by both Syria and Iran. Neither wants to be in a position where they can't deny attachment to Hezbollah if things go bad. At the same time they want to be able to use the Israeli reaction to further their own objectives.
Syria wants to be invited back into Lebanon.
Iran wants to form an alliance of Arab nations under their leadership.
That's not the case. Ethnically Iran is Persian. Persians and Arabs will not unite under one banner.sdw said:
Iran is a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy. Outside of Iraq, Arabs are overwhelmingly Sunni, who consider Shiites to be apostates. The Arab nations fear that Iran will attempt to create a "Shiite Crescent," unifying the Shia of the region under their control. Hezbollah, a Shiite militia, and the Shiite majority in Iraq might fall under that control.
I think that Iran feels that they can trancend the traditional religious and ethnic boundaries.rollerboy said:
They are in Iraq. They have some influence with both the Sunni and Shiite militias.
They have Hezbollah in Lebanon and they have some influence in Syria.
The Islamic radicals that are based in Saudi Arabia, al Queda and Iran all feel that the Saudi royals, Egypt and the other Arab countries are not doing their part in preserving Islam, spreading Islam and destroying the enemies of Islam.
They all feel that the more that their enemies degrade the lives of muslims, try to impose western values and base troops in their lands; the more they can unify a cadre to resist their enemies.
Since the other entities that are try to unify Islam are not states, Iran believes they are the natural leader.
