Let's talk Yemen

#601
#601
Rasputin_Vol said:
How's that Operation Prosperity Guardian working out?

We can't beat the North Koreans.
We can't beat the North Vietnamese.
We can't beat the Taliban.
We can't beat The Houthis.

But let's fight Iran, Russia and China.
Click to expand...
We beat the North Koreans,

Vietnam could have been won but the cost vs return wasn't worth it.

The Taliban..... See Vietnam.

The Houthi's, all we want is them to stop attacking civilian shipping.

China isn't ready yet. Iran would be humiliated quickly if we decided it was war with no constraints. Russia can't do much outside of their borders. They have internal problems.

Or capabilities are still greatly superior and we can reach out and touch someone anywhere in the world at a moments notice without much forward planning. No other country differently has those capabilities.
 
#602
#602
KB5252 said:
We beat the North Koreans,

Vietnam could have been won but the cost vs return wasn't worth it.

The Taliban..... See Vietnam.

The Houthi's, all we want is them to stop attacking civilian shipping.

China isn't ready yet. Iran would be humiliated quickly if we decided it was war with no constraints. Russia can't do much outside of their borders. They have internal problems.

Or capabilities are still greatly superior and we can reach out and touch someone anywhere in the world at a moments notice without much forward planning. No other country differently has those capabilities.
Click to expand...

We could destroy any military on earth IF our politicians and general officers allowed our military to do what needed to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700, UT_Dutchman, Orangeslice13 and 4 others
#606
#606
hog88 said:
We could destroy any military on earth IF our politicians and general officers allowed our military to do what needed to be done.
Click to expand...
Oh here we go with this nonsense...

What more did we need to do in Vietnam in order to win? We bombed the hell out of them, Cambodia and Laos, dropped napalm and agent orange, kid civilians at a Zionist/Nazi pace, and were there for nearly 20 years from the late 1950s-mid 1970s (so we had all the time in the world, also). What more did we need, more boots on the ground? Nukes?

Or, was it a pizz poor idea for us to be in SE Asia and taking sides in what was a civil war that had nothing to do with us... AT ALL?

And how are the planners and politicians we have today any different than the guys back then?
 
#608
#608
KB5252 said:
We beat the North Koreans, At the end of the Korean War, the North Koreans were in power and still are to this day. At best, you can call it a stalemate. But the North Koreans were NOT defeated.

Vietnam could have been won but the cost vs return wasn't worth it. Then why the hell did we go there in the first place? Shouldn't those (alleged) cost/benefits have been calculated before we went in? And again, at the end of the Vietnam war, the Communist Vietnamese were in power and still are today.

The Taliban..... See Vietnam. Same flawed logic and same flawed outcome. At the end of the Afghan War, the Taliban was back in power and still are to this day.

The Houthi's, all we want is them to stop attacking civilian shipping. They told you the terms of how to stop that. Ceasefire in Gaza. No other alternative is available. The US and the UK can't do diddly-squat (outside of boots on the ground or nukes) to protect shipping in that area.

China isn't ready yet. The United States isn't ready.
Iran would be humiliated quickly if we decided it was war with no constraints. No constraints? What constraints are you asking to be removed? Nukes? War crimes? Russia can't do much outside of their borders. They have internal problems. The Houthis have shown that the US can't do anything outside of our borders... or hell, we can't do s##t AT OUR OWN BORDER!!! And we have internal problems right here at home.

Or capabilities are still greatly superior and we can reach out and touch someone anywhere in the world at a moments notice without much forward planning. No other country differently has those capabilities. Not much forward planning? Sounds like you are just as incompetent as the politicians and bureaucrats you complained about in Vietnam and Afghanistan. And I'm not sure if you know this, but we don't have the productive capacity to keep up with Russia and China.
Click to expand...

.
 
#610
#610
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh here we go with this nonsense...

What more did we need to do in Vietnam in order to win? We bombed the hell out of them, Cambodia and Laos, dropped napalm and agent orange, kid civilians at a Zionist/Nazi pace, and were there for nearly 20 years from the late 1950s-mid 1970s (so we had all the time in the world, also). What more did we need, more boots on the ground? Nukes?

Or, was it a pizz poor idea for us to be in SE Asia and taking sides in what was a civil war that had nothing to do with us... AT ALL?

And how are the planners and politicians we have today any different than the guys back then?
Click to expand...
held the land we won and invaded the north
 
#613
#613
EasternVol said:
What would have been the cost to do that, how would it fit our objectives, and what would we do with NVN after we invaded?
Click to expand...
You looking for a cost benefit analysis or should he pull it out of his ass like you do when you promote spending billions on the UN?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#615
#615
EasternVol said:
Well see I haven’t promoted spending billions on the UN so you’re less than honest there, again.
Click to expand...
Ya, you did
That’s what happens when you don’t have a belief system and just want to argue. You can’t remember what positions you take.
 
#616
#616
Orangeslice13 said:
Ya, you did
That’s what happens when you don’t have a belief system and just want to argue. You can’t remember what positions you take.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t. You read what you want to be written rather than what’s written.
I don’t have a memory problem, knock on wood.
 
#620
#620
A lot to digest here.

Regarding Ras, I agree with a lot of his points but he is poor at arguing them sometimes or gets topics flatly wrong.

USA had no business being in Vietnam. However, that is VERY EASY to say in HINDSIGHT. With facts on hand, there was more logic behind it. USA didn't lose in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese regime lost because they failed to create legitimacy with the people and they turned to Ho Chi Minh. If you read about Ho Chi Minh, he could have clearly been Pro-Democratic and a USA ally if we had better policy in the late 1940s/early 1950s. We sided with France over him and that pushed him towards the USSR and China due to lack of support. He really wasn't a true Communist but a Vietnamese National (a lot came out after that). So Ras is right, never should have been there.

Middle East - Still learning more about that conflict. 95% of people supported going into Afghanistan at the time so hard to argue against that one but Iraq was extremely controversial and, even at the time, dubious.

Can the USA win these type wars? With its current culture, "no". If the USA had a united culture and a plan, sure they could win. How do you win in Afghanistan? Simple, you push the population to convert to your religion (away from Islam) and your way of living. Effectively, you do what Greece, Mongolia, Rome, Arabia, and other great Empires that dominated the Middle East did and force them to convert to your way of life. People who oppose this change, you kill off.

These countries are not unbeatable. Afghanistan was successfully conquered and help by Persia, Macedon, Arabia Caliphate, Persia again, Turkish Empires, Mongolia, and Mongolia part 2 (Timur lane). All of these societies pushed their culture on the region to control it.

Now whether that is worth it to win is the question and it really isn't work that kind of effort to win. Ras is right, better to just stay out or find other paths to win.
 
#622
#622
volbound1700 said:
A lot to digest here.

Regarding Ras, I agree with a lot of his points but he is poor at arguing them sometimes or gets topics flatly wrong.

USA had no business being in Vietnam. However, that is VERY EASY to say in HINDSIGHT. With facts on hand, there was more logic behind it. USA didn't lose in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese regime lost because they failed to create legitimacy with the people and they turned to Ho Chi Minh. If you read about Ho Chi Minh, he could have clearly been Pro-Democratic and a USA ally if we had better policy in the late 1940s/early 1950s. We sided with France over him and that pushed him towards the USSR and China due to lack of support. He really wasn't a true Communist but a Vietnamese National (a lot came out after that). So Ras is right, never should have been there.

Middle East - Still learning more about that conflict. 95% of people supported going into Afghanistan at the time so hard to argue against that one but Iraq was extremely controversial and, even at the time, dubious.

Can the USA win these type wars? With its current culture, "no". If the USA had a united culture and a plan, sure they could win. How do you win in Afghanistan? Simple, you push the population to convert to your religion (away from Islam) and your way of living. Effectively, you do what Greece, Mongolia, Rome, Arabia, and other great Empires that dominated the Middle East did and force them to convert to your way of life. People who oppose this change, you kill off.

These countries are not unbeatable. Afghanistan was successfully conquered and help by Persia, Macedon, Arabia Caliphate, Persia again, Turkish Empires, Mongolia, and Mongolia part 2 (Timur lane). All of these societies pushed their culture on the region to control it.

Now whether that is worth it to win is the question and it really isn't work that kind of effort to win. Ras is right, better to just stay out or find other paths to win.
Click to expand...
That started out ok but went downhill quickly, after the first sentence. I wouldn't slag off on Ras considering the accuracy of your commentary.
Why do you think VN was important enough to us to get involved and then expend the lives and money we did?
I have to say that you present an interesting view to say we didn't lose in VN. We didn't win, and we skedaddled, which generally indicates a loss.
You present a really interesting, to be polite, view when you say what we could do to win in the ME. Briefly, it wouldn't be possible even if we wanted to. There's no such thing as 'our religion' and there's barely 'our culture', and the locals are more set in their ways now.
 
#623
#623
volbound1700 said:
Can the USA win these type wars? With its current culture, "no". If the USA had a united culture and a plan, sure they could win. How do you win in Afghanistan? Simple, you push the population to convert to your religion (away from Islam) and your way of living. Effectively, you do what Greece, Mongolia, Rome, Arabia, and other great Empires that dominated the Middle East did and force them to convert to your way of life. People who oppose this change, you kill off.
Click to expand...
WTF??? Are you serious?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#624
#624
Rasputin_Vol said:
WTF??? Are you serious?
Click to expand...
Can’t speak for him….but…. Yes. That’s absolutely how you win wars over those types of people if you’re trying to conquer the land and stay there.

No we absolutely shouldn’t be doing that and we definitely should not fund it.

In Afghanistan we should have left at “mission accomplished“. Long before that actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and hog88
#625
#625
Orangeslice13 said:
Can’t speak for him….but…. Yes. That’s absolutely how you win wars over those types of people if you’re trying to conquer the land and stay there.

No we absolutely shouldn’t be doing that and we definitely should not fund it.

In Afghanistan we should have left at “mission accomplished“. Long before that actually.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, we will end up there again. Analysts have been saying that the terrorists are getting a foothold for training there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top