Agree completely. However, that's not feasible today. If it was over a century ago or even in the 1930s/1940s then maybe Israel could have easily done that and wiped them out and push the rest to other countries and occupy/take over the place like Russia did with Crimea. Nobody would have cared much, stuff like that used to happen alot back during those centuries. However, things are different today with social media, UN organisations, modern and globalised/interconnected world etc. Such actions would be frown upon by everyone and the news and events will be quickly spread around the world and thus generate a vicious reaction.
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and other Related Conflicts in the Middle East (read the rules in the first post)
- Thread starter phrozenflame
- Start date
Everyone has to far in line with Netanyahu endless war, anyone who disagree is blacklisted and harassed into submission.
Russia killed only 2 people in Crimea.
Nice joke. All that has already happened and we know Israel doesn't give a shit about it. The only thing preventing a complete ethnic cleansing atm is Egypt refusing to fully open it's borders. Thus, Palestinians have no chance but to stand. It's either stand or die, not stand or run like in Ukraine or any other conflict where people can choose to escape somewhere else.
Ukraine was a special case where more people ran away than other conflicts. In less than one year, some 8 million people fled the country (19% of the population). For comparison, in the Afghan War, less than 3 million Afghans (7% of the population) fled the country over 20 years, while some 5-8 million returned from previous wars. Ukr don't wanna stand.
Even though the Chinese Army suffered more combat losses, the Chinese Army did break through, and the road to Hanoi was wide open.
The Chinese Army could have made it to Hanoi, if they had chosen to. But remember the objective was never to conquer Vietnam.
At that point, the Vietnamese panicked and airlifted elite troops from Cambodia to face the Chinese Army.
Note that during this time, the Vietnamese were screaming for help from their Soviet "alliance", but the Soviets were unwilling and unable to help much.
The point being made, the Chinese (mostly) withdrew.
But for the following 10 years, the Chinese Army still occupied part of Vietnam's territory and would rotate Army units in for live-combat training against the Vietnamese Army.
So the Vietnamese learned the lesson that they couldn't rely on the Soviets.
China moved firmly into the anti-Soviet camp and a quasi-alliance with the US and the rest of the "West"
Economic benefits followed.
The Vietnamese were forced to maintain a huge standing army to at least try and match the Chinese Army
It meant Vietnam was even more militarised than the Soviets, never mind the Chinese.
Yet the Chinese Army never really worried too much about the Vietnamese Army and only deployed a modest force on the Vietnamese border, because everyone knew that statistically, Vietnam was comparable to one of the smaller and poorer Chinese provinces.
Vietnamese was forced into economic isolation and a cold war arms race with China, which it lost.
So you could argue that it was a strategic success for China.
It was always supposed to be a short victorious war, but the big issue is that the Chinese Army suffered heavier casualties than expected.
I would add that the entire world is becoming more anti-US as time goes on.
The latest is the UN vote on the USA sanctions on Cuba, which have been there for 50+ years out of sheer vindictiveness.
Here we an example where it is literally [US+Israel] against the Rest of the World
Even the Europeans can't get on board with US sanctions on Cuba. BBC Article below
Last edited:
Countries like Israel and US wouldn't exist to begin with if they didn't killing civilians.
China's goal was to make it more expensive and taxing for Vietnam to keep occupying Cambodia and increase to cost of Vietnam aggression in SEA. It also decreased Vietnam standing in ASEAN and increased China's relationship with Singapore and Thailand.
In the end, the amount of troops lost by both sides were similar, but I would say china did "teach Vietnam a lesson" and achieved at least some of their geopolitical goals.
From online sources:
The majority of diplomats and analysts concluded that China's long-term strategy was to stretch Vietnamese resources by having the Vietnamese divert their resources from other problems to the border conflict. Problems include Vietnam's difficulties integrating South Vietnam with the North, the burden of administrating Laos and occupying Cambodia, and economic problems caused by two years of disastrous weather.[80]
Assessments of the strategic consequences of the war vary considerably. Journalist Howard W. French quoted some historians of the opinion that "the war was started by Mr. Deng (China's then paramount leader Deng Xiaoping) to keep the army preoccupied while he consolidated power ..."[82] However, China strengthened its relations with ASEAN countries – particularly Thailand and Singapore – due to their fear of Vietnamese aggression. Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew wrote in 2000: "The Western press wrote off the Chinese punitive action as a failure. I believe it changed the history of East Asia."[83] In contrast, Vietnam's decreasing prestige in the region led it to be more dependent on the Soviet Union, to which it leased a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay.[84] Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote that "China succeeded in exposing the limits of...[Soviet] strategic reach" and speculated that the desire to "compensate for their ineffectuality" contributed to the Soviets' decision to intervene in Afghanistan a year later.[85]"
I guess one must ask, did the US achieve any of their geopolitical goals in the Vietnam war and the Afghanistan war? After they withdrew, did their prior goals become realized?
kwaigonegin
Colonel
You should honestly do some deep research on the south Vietnamese leadership
I encourage you to do some in depth research on this topic. I recommend reading the book Uphill Battle by Frank Scotton.
Yeah , now you guys are also coming out with excuses for China's performance just like the @kwaigonegin has been doing. You are doing the same thing you guys have been criticising him for doing. lol
Thing is China's objective was to prevent Vietnam from invading and occupying Cambodia and removing Polpots regime who was one of China's strongest allies back then. However, China failed to save polpots regime and failed to stop Vietnam from occupying Cambodia and installing a Vietnamese puppet government. Lol China had to pull out as well after severe losses and not being able to make Vietnam pull out from Cambodia or come to Cambodia's aid. So many will also argue China lossed, some will say it was even more critical for China was fighting a medium neighboring country just a step away from its land border while the US was fighting far way from its homeland in a foriegn continent far away from her territory.
As I said before, it depends on what we also define as loss. Lol
Some will argue both the US/France and China all lost in Vietnam. Others will argue they didn't really lost militarily per se but politically, others will say it was a complete loss where rhey couldn't sustain the war etc etc. All depends on the target audience and where the bias lies in I guess.
Last edited: