'Mass Arrest' of US Marines on Camp Pendleton

So I don't hijack your thread please feel free to read through this thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-compatible-are-democracy-and-capitalism.557315/

my posts in particular
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ocracy-and-capitalism.557315/#post-1070763489
and
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-capitalism.557315/page-2#post-1070770899

 

Yeah, i am sure that's exactly is what they were thinking

 

Liberalism is compatible, however there are not many liberals running around these days.
What we do have is leftists and they are not compatible with capitalism and our democratic republic. If it were compatible they wouldn't be running around trying to tear it apart.

 

Pretty much the response I was expecting. Make your failure to get basic facts right about everyone else but you. Obfuscate & distract. Standard conservative tactics when caught out spreading falsehoods.

I didn't bring up My Lai. I also didn't bring up the topic of the US military in the 60s (and 70s). The OP did that, so any discussion of US military behaviour during that period is fair game. Clearly the person with the problem understanding things here is you.

Cue evasion of responsibility.

 

Like every war...

 

The thread is @APACHERAT's.

 

Well...it was the OP that said this:

Not the Marine Corps I remembered.
But we were held to higher standards, our PFT was tougher, we were issued real rifles that could reach out and touch a commie (M-14) and political correctness was forbidden because it's cultural-marxism and no war has ever been won with political correctness or social engineering of the military.

I was just reminding him that the "higher standards" he talked about, didn't exist, and My Lai stood out in my mind as a glaring example.

 

You didn't lose?
Would you prefer that instead of saying that you lost everyone instead says that you came second, you were the runners up, when the medals were given out you got the silver, not the gold?
The actual winners of the war celebrate their victory over the US every year.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/30/vietnam-war-anniversary/26622353/

 

Much ado about absolutely NOTHING. The price of toilette paper has gone up in Tunisia too but the Vietnamese still kicked the bejesus out of the U.S. and sent them home with their tails between their legs. But maybe that fact paves the way for the Yankee States to wage yet another invasion of the Southern States, this time without even the possibility of Queen Victoria lending a hand to the Rebels.

 

If you are shocked and disgusted then I presume this is the first time you've read any of his posts?

 

Pure logic.

 

Finally, someone opened the window and let some fresh air in.

 

The only true part is that I didn't research My Lai sufficiently but certainly should have before responding. The rest is gibberish.

 

Our troops were long gone when Saigon fell. You can't lose if you aren't there. Politically it was a loss, but we were not defeated militarily. The anti-USA snowflakes are always trying to find some way to down the US. I guess it gives them a shot to their self esteem.

 

When you actually state a fact, I will have my shocked look.

 

Funny thing, I don't recall a single American applying that definition of 'not losing' to the Russians in Afghanistan. I'm sure there are a few deluded Russians out there jumping up & down & claiming that Russia didn't really lose, or it didn't lose 'militarily' (a made up criteria, you either win or lose), or it wasn't really a loss because all their troops were gone, or it was only a loss because the Russian government was weak, or because Russians were 'snowflakes or.....whatever.

America's aim in Vietnam was to prevent the unification of Vietnam under Communist rule by maintaining America's ally - the Republic of Vietnam. America withdrew all its troops with the enemy still in the field and the ally not yet safe. America signed a 'peace' deal that forced that ally to tolerate an invading army on its territory, and which was considered by that ally to be a death sentence. Privately the American officials who negotiated that 'peace' deal acknowledged that it doomed the RVN to destruction, but gave America a 'decent interval' between US withdrawal and the failure of all US objectives in that war. Those officials immediately began creating the fiction that America 'won' in Vietnam for the suckers who couldn't see a loss when it hit their nation square between the eyes.

America lost in Vietnam. Deal with it.

 

Or human trafficking.

 

Ah, I know you members of the once great British empire are jealous that the US is now king of the hill, don't take it so hard, all great empires fall, but I won't be alive to see the US fall, unlike you who have to live in the shadow of the one nation that kicked British ass TWICE! Would you say the allies lost WW I because Hitler broke the peace treaty and then conquered France and much of Europe? As for the USSR, their military suffered various defeats and Stinger missiles was costing them too many aircraft. While their withdrawal was based more on Gorbachev's new direction on foreign and domestic policy, they were still undergoing offensive operations shortly before the withdrawal, unlike the US who took out nearly all combat troops. The US did abandon South Vietnam, but it was the cutting off of most aid that doomed the RVN.

 

There are two different definitions of 'defeat' here.

One is the most common definition: one side lowers its flag, and hands over its sword to the victor. Germany and Japan in the Second World War. Of course this didn't happen to the US in Vietnam, nor to the Soviets in Afghanistan, and could not have happened.

The second sort of 'defeat' doesn't involved open acknowledgement, in the usual way, that the other side has prevailed. One side just decides that continuing the struggle would not be worth the price: Germany after WWI is an example of a case where continuing the struggle might have resulted in classical defeat; Britain in Ireland, the US in Vietnam, and Russia in Afghanistan are examples where one side probably could have continued indefinitely, from a material point of view, but where its leaders decided it was not worth it, no doubt with an eye on possible public opinion should the prospect of an endless war be put before them. Since the wars in these cases were being fought on foreign soil, the 'defeated' could just go home.

There can then be arguments about whether that judgement was correct. Some people believe that a 'surge' in Vietnam could have resulted in a 'Korean' outcome, just as some Germans argued that Germany could have prevailed on the battlefield if she had not been stabbed in the back by socialists at home, and others believe that retaining a large American military presence in Iraq could have prevented the rise of ISIS.

Perhaps a compromise is possible: both sides can acknowledge that we 'lost' in Vietnam, that we were defeated in our objectives there, but can disagree about the causes. Was our withdrawal a military mistake, forced on us by inept politicians who didn't have the nerve to stay the course until victory? Or would we still be fighting in Vietnam today?

Counterfactual history is grounds for endless debate. A more interesting question is: exactly how is the US worse off today, because of the Communist victory in Vietnam in 1975? The idea of 'the domino effect' dominated American foreign policy then, but the really important domino, Indonesia, had fallen the other way ten years earlier. The other little Indochinese states didn't matter much. By 1975, Communists in Latin America were being strapped to torture chairs or dropped out of helicopters -- there would be last hurrah in Nicaragua but that was easily fended off. Africa was in the usual chaos but who really cared?

Our eye should have been on the Iranian ball, but generals always fight the last war.

 

Dear me, what a convoluted and poorly argued evasion.

The 'Hitler' argument looks like something a drunk 15 year old would think was clever. You do understand that WW1 actually ended in 1918 when all major combatants signed a peace treaty- all hostilities ceased. Never to resume. Yes? No one with a functioning brain thinks the Vietnam War ended in 1973. The two major combatants did not sign a peace treaty. In fact, at no point did the fighting cease, it merely changed in intensity.

Not sure if you are arguing the USSR won, lost or drew in Afghanistan....or just stringing together random thoughts hoping a point will spontaneously appear. The only people I have ever seen claim the USSR did not lose in Afghanistan are Americans trying to argue the US did not lose Vietnam. No one said or thought that when those last Russian troops rolled back over the border.

South Vietnam was doomed when the US withdrew all combat forces and then had its sponsor sign a 'peace' deal that gave away 10% of its territory to its sworn enemy, let that enemy station an army on it and forced the South to recognise the Communist alternative government. South Vietnam knew the deal was a death sentence and said it at the time. Kissinger & Nixon knew it was a death sentence and said so privately. Then they lied in public and blamed everyone but themselves. Guess you bought the lie.

 

Good post. I'll try to give it the response it deserves when I get a bit more time.

 

When someone uses the 'it sounds like a 15 year old', I know I got under their skin. You can cry all you want that the US lost, we followed the treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords which stipulated we remove all combat troops. I think most know we threw SVN under the bus, that is a separate issue from losing. I know everyone wants to knock the king of the hill down a notch and I know this country acts with an arrogance where other countries like to see us knocked down to size, so if it makes you feel better to think a-ha, the US lost a war, go right ahead. Nothing will change your mind and nothing will change mine.

 

Dear me. I guess some people just can't face reality. I suppose when you are emotionally invested in the idea that your nation always has to be the best pesky facts are never going to make a dent.

Personally I wish the US had won. What happened was a bad result for the region. However, my emotions don't dictate the way I assess the facts.

 

Do not trust the American Public for moral guidance. There are many within that public who, during times of war (illegal or legal) support barbaric actions. My Lai supported that, and so did Abu Ghraib. Much of the public is quite enthusiastic about barbaric actions.