Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

rarehistoricalphotos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 624 posts

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#351

Post by baybal2 »

dillondoyle wrote: post #228
whimsicalism wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say we won Gulf war II, we've definitely lost Syria by now, Afghanistan probably lost. That said, many of the well-known, long haul conflicts that the US are involved in are the ones they are most likely to lose. The ones they win they usually win quickly and are less well known. There are plenty of interventions post-WWII that have been quick successes for the US, esp. in Latin America.

Yeah Syria is interesting The problem with all these conflicts is winning is so poorly defined or multi-goal. What's winning in Syria? Getting rid of assad and then leaving? We could probably do that in a week or less and utterly demolish the country if we wanted. The consequences of 'winning' that war under that definition would probably be pretty horrible. But that doesn't seem to be the goal right now? There's the…

> There's the wider goal of not wanting to poke the Russia bear too much while simultaneously not letting Russia run too wild (arguably they are..).

Excuse me, but the goal should be that exactly. Not leaving an inch of flesh of the bear unpoked.

If you resign your emotions, and try to think about it seriously, it makes a lot of sense strategically to conduct a massive provocation.

Right now, it's completely the other way around: Putin delivers one grievous provocation after another to NATO. NATO grovels, shivers, but does nothing, for the whole world to laugh on.

It earns him client states, and satellites. You absolutely don't want your enemies flocking together.

If you turn that around, the world, and his wannabe clients that it's him now who can't do anything, but throw adorable tantrums, his construct will melt away withing years.

2 birds 1 stone.

It's also the types like Orbans, Sisis, and Assads who are only showing the voice now, because they can afford to look brave when the West is intimidated. That will pull the carpet from under them too.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#352

Post by ant6n »

xzlzx wrote: post #215
xzlzx wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it’s a tad silly to say that the U.S. lost these wars. Can you really lose a war with a massive nuclear arsenal on your side? It’s crazy that this seems to never be mentioned. This seems quite similar to Americans demanding their gun rights to protect themselves from the government. Well, I hate to inform you of this, but the government could out gun you since time immemorial. It’s a wild argument for gun rights.

How can you “win” a war when the other country can press a single button and eliminate 100% of the people in your country?

Because they won’t hit that button. Just look at how Vietnam won.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#353

Post by dundarious »

chrisco255 wrote: post #338
dundarious wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right it was quickly viewed as a "blunder", even just before the war's end, but I think GP might feel that "mistake" is underselling it to a shocking extent. The Strategic Hamlet Program amounted to herding people in South Vietnam into concentration camps -- no, not as awful as those of the Nazis, but concentration camps nonetheless. There were many other brutal policies inflicted on non-combatants (no…

Have you watched any movies about the Vietnam War? Like Casualties of War (1989) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097027/ , Apocalypse Now (1979), etc : https://www.imdb.com/list/ls000091595/ To argue that Americans have been 'heavily indoctrinated in the US to believe a ton of bullshit' doesn't square up with the coverage and popular media about Vietnam that I've seen since I've been alive. Virtually all of the movies…

I'm not ncfausti so I think most of this comment doesn't apply to me. Nevertheless, I don't agree with many of your conclusions.

* The existence of films critical of the war does not imply that the mainstream "serious" political opinion of the day (that you would read in national newspapers, for example) went beyond calling the war a "quagmire" or "disaster", then with a justifying "but...", usually mentioning Domino theory or Containment as you implicitly do. I disagree with that assessment.

* The fact that North Vietnam (or Japan, or anyone) were awful in their treatment of PoWs doesn't excuse the US treating civilians in South Korea terribly. You are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your own actions (or a close ally's actions), not someone else's. It's not "whataboutism" to focus on the effects you can actually control, even if it's historical. You can't change the past, but you can learn from your own history and understand what is "foreign propaganda" and what's actually just an uncomfortable truth.

* I can think of a few US interventions in the Cold War that seem to have hurt more than they helped, even with info available to decision-makers before committing to them. Vietnam is one of them.

Edit: I don't want to contribute to a pointless back-and-forth asking leading questions of each other, and don't have the time to go into major detail or link reading material, but I just thought I'd at least elaborate my thoughts more on the "blunder" comment, and the point about focusing on your own actions.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#354

Post by ant6n »

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #341
enraged_camel wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a native-born American and don't feel like I have skin in that game. I just feel like in war, there may be victors, but there are no winners . Especially in the modern age, if you get in a war, all sides lose. Victory is just a matter of who manages to lose less.

I think WW2 had pretty decisive winners and losers

Although some of the victors were also losers (like the Soviet Union). Basically the only decisive winner was the US.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#355

Post by darksaints »

Taniwha wrote: post #350
nine_k wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many wars did the US win (as in "achieved the political goals") since WWII? Korean war: half won, half lost. Vietnam war: lost. Grenada invasion: sort of won. Gulf war 1991: I'd say won, despite Saddam staying in power. Gulf war II: I'd say lost, despite Saddam deposition. Afghanistan: lost, despite the killing of bin Laden. Syria: can't tell yet. It's a pretty depressing tally. With that, I'd say that the US was…

To be fair none of these actually involved a declaration of war, the US congress ha not declared war since ww2 - these have all been wars by stealth

I'm not really sure what the difference is between a declaration of war and an authorization of war, but we've had congressional authorization for a couple conflicts since then. I would argue that if Congress voted on it in the affirmative, it's not really a secret or stealthy war.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#356

Post by ant6n »

kumarvvr wrote: post #244
coliveira wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people in the US never accepted that they were defeated. And the US media did a good job of never making this point (the defeat against Vietnam) clear. It is a version of the "lost cause" phenomenon of the US south.

Yeah. The downfall of great nations begins with denying the reality. That slowly seeps into every nook and corner of the society, leading to rot from within. You can see this already happening in the US. The drive is politics, the lube is the media. The denial of reality and the rejection of truth is more prominent than ever and it is showing its face everywhere in US politics. As on date, for the last decade, no pol…

Then again, denying reality has been ingrained in the us for what, 200 years?

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#357

Post by baybal2 »

pie420 wrote: post #283
nine_k wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many wars did the US win (as in "achieved the political goals") since WWII? Korean war: half won, half lost. Vietnam war: lost. Grenada invasion: sort of won. Gulf war 1991: I'd say won, despite Saddam staying in power. Gulf war II: I'd say lost, despite Saddam deposition. Afghanistan: lost, despite the killing of bin Laden. Syria: can't tell yet. It's a pretty depressing tally. With that, I'd say that the US was…

Korean War: won, South Korea was transformed into an american colony a la Japan, and is now used as a platform to counter China in the east as well as trading partner and military base. Vietnam: countered Soviet expansionism and prevented Vietnam from becoming a communist regional superpower, Vietnam has not done much besides be a trading partner for the US since. Grenada: won Gulf wars: overwhelming victories. Desta…

> Syria: mostly a failure at this point. The hope was to break Syria and build the Qatar gas pipeline to hurt Russia's hegemony

Please open a map, and take a look where Qatar is.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#358

Post by jlkuester7 »

jerglingu wrote: post #321
xzlzx wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it’s a tad silly to say that the U.S. lost these wars. Can you really lose a war with a massive nuclear arsenal on your side? It’s crazy that this seems to never be mentioned. This seems quite similar to Americans demanding their gun rights to protect themselves from the government. Well, I hate to inform you of this, but the government could out gun you since time immemorial. It’s a wild argument for gun rights.

> IMO it’s a tad silly to say that the U.S. lost these wars. Can you really lose a war with a massive nuclear arsenal on your side? It’s crazy that this seems to never be mentioned. An observation not lost to the ground forces. I was in the US infantry 10+ years ago. We were well trained and lethal. We had an overwhelming technological targeting advantage. We had the support of a sizeable amount of the local populati…

Firstly, thank you for your service!

Secondly, I think you definitely hit the nail on the head when it comes to the ROE being the main limiting factor in the "effectiveness" of the US military in being able to subdue its enemies, not just in Afghanistan/Iraq, but also in Vietnam and even to some extant in Korea. It seems to be one of the weird side-effects that nukes have on armed conflicts that when you have nukes, you really can never actually "fully commit" to a conflict. (Since going "all-in" could be apocalyptic.)

One thing I have always wondered, though, is the relationship between the ROE and irregular warfare. If the military personnel on the ground had broader discretion over their actions, would help or hinder the goal of "winning hearts and minds"?

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#359

Post by darksaints »

whimsicalism wrote: post #238
dillondoyle wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah Syria is interesting The problem with all these conflicts is winning is so poorly defined or multi-goal. What's winning in Syria? Getting rid of assad and then leaving? We could probably do that in a week or less and utterly demolish the country if we wanted. The consequences of 'winning' that war under that definition would probably be pretty horrible. But that doesn't seem to be the goal right now? There's the…

> We could probably do that in a week or less Eh - I'm not sure. Getting aircraft overhead would be difficult east of the euphrates when they have lots of anti-aircraft guns and they are also supported heavily by Russia. The only Western power currently conducting airstrikes east of the euphrates is Israel and they have had planes shot down by Syria & Russia. The US has a preponderance of military power, but I do thi…

If the goal is total to level the country to the ground, we've had that capability for decades now: supersonic and stealth bombers, as well as SLBMs, SLCMs, and ICBMs. And there's always nukes of course.

The whole collateral damage aspect is pretty high. But if we were willing to deal with the humanitarian and diplomatic fallout, we could do it pretty easily.

Re: Vietnam War images from the North Vietnamese side

#360

Post by darksaints »

kumarvvr wrote: post #214
stolen_biscuit wrote: post #74

There's a lot of people in the comments saying that Vietnam didn't really "win" the war. Their political and military objectives were ultimately successful, those of the US/South Vietnam were not. That's what a victory is. The cost of victory was very high, but it was a pretty unambiguous success for the Vietnamese.

The worlds most advanced, wealthiest and militarily powerful country did not obtain it's primary objective in the war, stopping the spread of communism.

What's really amazing is that we could have done nothing, and it still would have failed eventually. There aren't any communist regimes that have been truly successful. The Soviets succeeded in industrialization, but then ate itself from within. The Chinese succeeded in industrialization, but only after transitioning away from maoist communism and more towards state capitalism. Everything else basically failed outright.
Post reply on HN