Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)

Stooge reality check, as much as I think of the cowardly behavior of these Gulf and Arabs governments in this conflict I still fail to realize WHY these governments are willingly going to put a risk their oil infrastructure and worse, their legitimacy in the islamic world to defend Netanyahu and his many acolytes Neo-Fascist-Zionist-Fantasy of a government in israel, that see most Muslims as inferiors and specially Arabs as even more inferior. WHY?

plawolf said:

So by your logic the Soviets never lost their Afghanistan war; the Axis didn’t loose WWI since it was only an armistice that was signed and not treaty of surrender; and the Qing didn’t loose the Opium wars etc.

The everyday equivalent would be like saying that running away after getting your ass beat isn’t loosing because you weren’t KO’d. It doesn’t matter if you landed more punches in the fight. All that matters is that you lost the will and/or the means to continue fighting first.

Click to expand...

False equivalence but since this entire forum has become extremely anti-US in the last few years, there is no point for me to discuss further. I'm only responding to you because I've 'known' you for a very long time.
Anything post, discussion or notion that is even partially not 100% anti-US in nature is quickly mocked and ridiculed.
American or 'western' inferiority or lost is vehemently celebrated. I've always find this to be quite ironic considering I know for a fact that many members here reside in the US, Europe yet it as if they really hate their country of domicile.

As to your Afghanistan example again erroneous dynamics. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of occupying it. The US NEVER wanted to invade nor occupy Vietnam.
One of the primary reasons why the US pulled out was also the final realization that the S. Vietnamese leaders were totally useless and corrupted. Kennedy actually wanted to withdraw but got assassinated.
The US did NOT lose militarily. For you and others here to keep peddling that narrative is intellectually dishonest.
But hey, since I'm just one against many here who believe in the narrative that the US is just absolutely evil, while China, or in this specific case NVA, Viet Cong, HCM etc. are all pure and good and totally 'kicked US asses' with total military victories... there is no point for me to push my correction. It will fall on deaf eyes and only prolong unnecessary dissention.

kwaigonegin said:

False equivalence but since this entire forum has become extremely anti-US in the last few years, there is no point for me to discuss further. I'm only responding to you because I've 'known' you for a very long time.
Anything post, discussion or notion that is even partially not 100% anti-US in nature is quickly mocked and ridiculed.
American or 'western' inferiority or lost is vehemently celebrated. I've always find this to be quite ironic considering I know for a fact that many members here reside in the US, Europe yet it as if they really hate their country of domicile.

As to your Afghanistan example again erroneous dynamics. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of occupying it. The US NEVER wanted to invade nor occupy Vietnam.
One of the primary reasons why the US pulled out was also the final realization that the S. Vietnamese leaders were totally useless and corrupted. Kennedy actually wanted to withdraw but got assassinated.
The US did NOT lose militarily. For you and others here to keep peddling that narrative is intellectually dishonest.
But hey, since I'm just one against many here who believe in the narrative that the US is just absolutely evil, while China, or in this specific case NVA, Viet Cong, HCM etc. are all pure and good and totally 'kicked US asses' with total military victories... there is no point for me to push my correction. It will fall on deaf eyes and only prolong unnecessary dissention.

Click to expand...

"Ackshually, we could have won in both Vietnam and Afghanistan" .

AndrewS said:

I don't think so.

What would the situation be like if the US Army were still in Vietnam today?

What we should have seen is US conscripts refusing to join the US Army for decades, knowing they they be sent to Vietnam. Professional soldiers world also be burnt out from knowing they were in a pointless and immoral war where they were the bad guys, and would leave.

So there would be a much shrunken US Army presence. Arguably this would be small enough that the Vietcong could start defeating.
At the same time, the cost to the US would keep increasing upwards to literally unaffordable levels.

---

Over 3.1 million soldiers were sent to Vietnam over a roughly 10 year period.

So if the US were to have maintained this level to today, that implies another 15.5 million soldiers would have been needed over the past 5 decades. I severely doubt the US Army could find or coerce enough recruits.

In the real-life timeline, the US Army was already broken by Vietnam. Yet you say the US could sustain another 5 Vietnams?

---

In terms of cost, the estimate was roughly equivalent to $1 Trillion today, mostly spent in a roughly 10 year period.

So if the Vietnam war was still on today, that's an additional $5 Trillion added to the US national debt.
If the original spending timeline remains, that $5 Trillion would compound to ridiculously high levels to an additional 100%+ of today's US GDP.
Of course, this wouldn't have happened, so there would been tax increases or domestic spending cuts in the USA.

---

Arguably the US economy had already been broken by the real-life Vietnam war.
Yet continuing the Vietnam war for another 50 years is feasible?

Click to expand...

That was a figure of speech! GEEZ! A win is when a force destroys another or force the opposing team to capitulate.
The NVA had ZERO chance of winning over the US forces. Their military were pretty much decimated. The US had total control over the skies of both South and North Vietnam and flew with impunity after the very early phases of the war when the NVAF MiGs put up a good fight..
The US loses while significant was also much less than NVA and Viet Cong.
The US did not lose Vietnam. South Vietnam lost Vietnam.

kwaigonegin said:

That was a figure of speech! GEEZ! A win is when a force destroys another or force the opposing team to capitulate.
The NVA had ZERO chance of winning over the US forces. Their military were pretty much decimated. The US had total control over the skies of both South and North Vietnam and flew with impunity after the very early phases of the war when the NVAF MiGs put up a good fight..
The US loses while significant was also much less than NVA and Viet Cong.
The US did not lose Vietnam. South Vietnam lost Vietnam.

Click to expand...

You're completely delusional. 5000+ fixed wing losses, more than 3 million troops rotated, and the NVA was still breaking through at the end. South Vietnam losing most of their troops.

Sure weird that according to you, US spent all those lives and planes on "decimating" the NVA, yet the moment the war should be easily won because NVA is "decimated", they retreated instead of taking advantage of the "decimated" enemy.

This is what nationalism does to your brain. The difference between you and "the people on this forum" you cry about is that we don't have an issue acknowledging real events just because they were adversial to the guys we support. I freely say Afghanistan was lost for USSR, that Israel won multiple wars against Arab coalitions, I don't hold delusions that "actually they could have fought on forever and only withdrew because of politics!".

That is one of the difference between patriotism and blind ultra nationalism, which unfortunately is becoming more and more common in the US by the day.

kwaigonegin said:

False equivalence but since this entire forum has become extremely anti-US in the last few years, there is no point for me to discuss further. I'm only responding to you because I've 'known' you for a very long time.
Anything post, discussion or notion that is even partially not 100% anti-US in nature is quickly mocked and ridiculed.
American or 'western' inferiority or lost is vehemently celebrated. I've always find this to be quite ironic considering I know for a fact that many members here reside in the US, Europe yet it as if they really hate their country of domicile.

As to your Afghanistan example again erroneous dynamics. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of occupying it. The US NEVER wanted to invade nor occupy Vietnam.
One of the primary reasons why the US pulled out was also the final realization that the S. Vietnamese leaders were totally useless and corrupted. Kennedy actually wanted to withdraw but got assassinated.
The US did NOT lose militarily. For you and others here to keep peddling that narrative is intellectually dishonest.
But hey, since I'm just one against many here who believe in the narrative that the US is just absolutely evil, while China, or in this specific case NVA, Viet Cong, HCM etc. are all pure and good and totally 'kicked US asses' with total military victories... there is no point for me to push my correction. It will fall on deaf eyes and only prolong unnecessary dissention.

Click to expand...

The South also didn't lose the US civil war right?

kwaigonegin said:

The Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of occupying it.

Click to expand...

The Soviets entered Afghanistan to support the communist government there against insurgents.

kwaigonegin said:

The US NEVER wanted to invade nor occupy Vietnam.

Click to expand...

The US did not want South Vietnam to fall to the communist sphere and they did that by sending troops to South Vietnam to prop them up.

It was pretty much just like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Including the CIA/KGB getting rid of the existing leader to try assert more control over their puppet state.

kwaigonegin said:

One of the primary reasons why the US pulled out was also the final realization that the S. Vietnamese leaders were totally useless and corrupted.

Click to expand...

Leaders which the US got into that position in the first place. How convenient to blame them.

kwaigonegin said:

The US did NOT lose militarily. For you and others here to keep peddling that narrative is intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

Even Wikipedia states otherwise. What is the typical excuse? That the US won all the battles but lost the war. Except that is not true either.

Look, wars are fought with objectives. If you fail at your objectives you lose the war. It is as simple as that.

kwaigonegin said:

That was a figure of speech! GEEZ! A win is when a force destroys another or force the opposing team to capitulate.
The NVA had ZERO chance of winning over the US forces. Their military were pretty much decimated. The US had total control over the skies of both South and North Vietnam and flew with impunity after the very early phases of the war when the NVAF MiGs put up a good fight..
The US loses while significant was also much less than NVA and Viet Cong.
The US did not lose Vietnam. South Vietnam lost Vietnam.

Click to expand...

The U.S. didn’t win militarily since its goal was to stop the North Vietnamese from conquering the South. It lost because the butcher’s bill was more than the American citizenry and politicians could tolerate. If all those victories over the NVA had been achieved with fewer casualties, perhaps there would have been less opposition at home. But as late as 1969, a year when the U.S. was supposed to be winding down ground operations (with 25,000 troops withdrawn in August), the average monthly KIA was still 1,000. And no, the U.S. did not gain air supremacy over North Vietnam. It lost 15 B-52’s and half a dozen other aircraft during the Linebacker II raids (26 in a twelve-day period). It’s not being anti-American to mention these, they are facts.

kwaigonegin said:

False equivalence but since this entire forum has become extremely anti-US in the last few years, there is no point for me to discuss further. I'm only responding to you because I've 'known' you for a very long time.
Anything post, discussion or notion that is even partially not 100% anti-US in nature is quickly mocked and ridiculed.
American or 'western' inferiority or lost is vehemently celebrated. I've always find this to be quite ironic considering I know for a fact that many members here reside in the US, Europe yet it as if they really hate their country of domicile.

As to your Afghanistan example again erroneous dynamics. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the sole purpose of occupying it. The US NEVER wanted to invade nor occupy Vietnam.
One of the primary reasons why the US pulled out was also the final realization that the S. Vietnamese leaders were totally useless and corrupted. Kennedy actually wanted to withdraw but got assassinated.
The US did NOT lose militarily. For you and others here to keep peddling that narrative is intellectually dishonest.
But hey, since I'm just one against many here who believe in the narrative that the US is just absolutely evil, while China, or in this specific case NVA, Viet Cong, HCM etc. are all pure and good and totally 'kicked US asses' with total military victories... there is no point for me to push my correction. It will fall on deaf eyes and only prolong unnecessary dissention.

Click to expand...

I guess here is a perfect case study in why and how America managed to get so little mileage out of its military dominance since its people refuse to face up to reality as that will damage their pride too much. So they end up never learning the core lesson Vietnam should have encoded in the very DNA of its military leaders and people.

Vietnam is THE perfect case study in how you can win every battle but still loose the war.

Wars are waged for a reason, that purpose, that central objective you go to war to achieve is how the outcome is determined by. Not how many battles you win or what K/D ratio you achieve. Granted, normally the two go hand-in-hand, but not always. Even game designers grasp that logic, and you can loose the match even if you have the highest K/D ratio in the game if you don’t play the objectives and simply farm for kills and hide away to avoid deaths.

Vietnam wasn’t even close to being the first example. If you want a more palatable example, look back in your own history and the American war of Independence.What was the K/D ratio and W/L ratio of major battles? Did the American colonists really break the back of the mighty British Army, or did you just managed to make the fight more costly than it was worth for them to continue?

Refusing to accept the reality that winning battles alone don’t win wars is why America got so bogged down in its ME misadventures.

Military might is only a means to an end, not the end in itself. Just look at Gaza. The Israelis have gone further than basically anyone else in modern history and the Palestinians are still standing and saying they can go all day. The only ‘military’ solution to that ‘problem’ is to go full Hitler/Genghis Khan and literally leave no one left alive to stand up to you.

pgon said:

The U.S. didn’t win militarily since its goal was to stop the North Vietnamese from conquering the South. It lost because the butcher’s bill was more than the American citizenry and politicians could tolerate. If all those victories over the NVA had been achieved with fewer casualties, perhaps there would have been less opposition at home. But as late as 1969, a year when the U.S. was supposed to be winding down ground operations (with 25,000 troops withdrawn in August), the average monthly KIA was still 1,000. And no, the U.S. did not gain air supremacy over North Vietnam. It lost 15 B-52’s and half a dozen other aircraft during the Linebacker II raids (26 in a twelve-day period). It’s not being anti-American to mention these, they are facts.

Click to expand...

Not sure why these people hate facts.

The US actually lost over 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam. An average of 3 per day over the 10 year war.
5000 fixed wing and 5000 helicopters.