You Don't Defeat the US Military on the Battlefield...

Actually the US succeeded in Korea. We force the North Koreans and their Russian allies back where they belonged despite the fact that South Korea only had control over 5% of the country when we joined the fight. The US had almost obliterated North Korea before China got involved. It ended in a stalemate with each side having the same territory they had before North Korea started the war.

Nope, in both cases the wars were a tie and a loss for the US because of what was going on in the UN and Washington.

Yes, there were technological advantages that should have helped the UN (Korea) and US (Vietnam), but for the most part the troops were denied the use of the technology, weapons and tactical advantages.

The goal in war is to deny the enemy the ability to continue the fight. In Korea the UN and US handed the N. Koreans and Chinese the victory because we wouldn't allow the troops to do what was necessary to win. Which means mostly that we didn't stop the Communists from staging, planning and resupplying the N. Korean military from China. We allowed China to be a safe haven for them. A safe haven that we didn't have.

In the case of Vietnam, Washington lost that war plain and simple. Commanders on the ground had to play chilish "mother may I" games with Congress and the President to do anything. While the North Vietnamese army and the Soviets were allowed to fight the war any way they wished, our troops had to get permissio to fire back, expend ammunition into empty fields, and deal with the fact that they were unwelcome in their own nation.

Congress and the presidents involved were the best commanders in the North Vietnamese military.

The propaganda war is the ultimate arbitor of who gets to keep fighting the hardest and longest. When the politicians have been defeated, it doesn't matter how strong, well trained, well equipped or determined the troops are.

When the friends, family and neigbors of the troops are spitting on them (either figuratively in letters, or actually as they come home) the troops not only lose their ability to continue the fight, they lose any reason to keep fighting.

The Korean War was a tie because the Useless UN wanted it to be. Vietnam was a loss because Washington DC was too cowardly to fight it.

What he said...

Thanks for typing all that so I didn't have too. While I will concede that we did in fact lose in Vietnam (for all usefull purposes) The loss had nothing to do with the military. The loss was caused by politics at home. Which all just goes to prove the initial statement that started this discussion.

The loss in Vietnam was more to do with better strategy, discipline and tactics by the other side

all the best urban

You're absolutely right. It's just too damned bad the "other side" were traitorous Leftists in D.C.

Maggiepie

No, you were defeated militarily on the ground by the troupes you were fighting.

all the best urban

Urine. Idiot.

We will NOT allow your history revisionism, pal. We were THERE. We KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

Now eat dirt & die, maroon.

Maggiepie Sick of giving "useful idiots" (still Stalin's best phrase) the room to lie unchallenged.

Grow up pup and debate like an adult instead of a spoilt little girl

all the best urban

Urban, you have no idea what you are talking about. Or are you just trying to be an antagonist?

Another person that doesn't know how to debate.

all the best urban

Alright then, please, expound your obviously vast knowlege of American history and battlefield tactics and please, enlighten us on how it is we "fair got our arses kicked. I'm especialy interested in seeing you educate the one in this discussion who was there on that battlefield, because I'm sure they must be wrong. So please, educate us.

Better. At least you have a view which you describe more or less. less in this case, cogently. Now try and make some supporting arguments, not just we know best cause we were there, that really won't do

all the best urban

Um, no, you made the statement that we got our arses kicked, now back it up.

I guess it's just way too easy to make a blanket statement like "US military got its arse well and truly kicked" without any facts or examples to back it up.

That's ok Urban, I have yet to read anything from you that didn't condemn the US about something.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Xfah... On the contrary Parated's claim in this discussion is that US military was or can't be defeated on the battlefield. I am merely pointing out that his claim is contentious, since it runs contrary to the consensus of world opinion, and therefore he is not entitled to just assume it to be the case without arguing for it

all the best urban

Parated, in this discussion,

http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1866541.aspx

I am arguing in favour of America, against one of your countrymen

all the best urban

Well, I'm going to let former and present military personal, especialy those who actually faught in vietnam argue the finer points. But popular world opinion does not nessearily equal fact.
Over all, we got out before a defeat or victory in the over all objective could be achieved, due to politics here at home, hence, the actual point of the thread. Though we retreated thanks to cowards in washington, we did in fact win decisivly on battlefields there, battle for battle, that is a simple fact. We "lost" the war only in that we pulled out.

No, indeed the world consensus does not equal fact but it is a better place to start than Parated's unsupported claim

all the best urban

I would have to say that although the US deserted its positions in Vietnam, it was not due to the US military getting its arse kicked. This war was lost by the politicians who were under pressure from the anti war group. It was an unpopular war, just like the war the US now finds itself in is unpopular, The troops on the ground are winning, but the left keeps claiming The US is defeated. The only thing that can defeat the US military is the US congress and bed wetting leftists.

Again, more unsupported claims. The rest of the world also watched the war with eyes unbiased by patriotism and to them it was clear you got your arses well and truly kicked on the ground. Now it may be that the ROW perception is wrong but if it is then it is a case you would need to argue for. The consensus of world opinion is a place to argue from not from the contentious position you claim.

all the best urban

Grow up pup and debate like an adult instead of a spoilt little girl

all the best urban

No. History has proven that your sort doesn't have the facts TO debate. It's a waste of time (& risk of carpal tunnel syndrome) to do what YOU call "debate."

I know what real debate is, & you're just not worth real debate. Therefore, I repeat, eat dirt & die, maroon. I'm saving my skills for people who come honestly to the debate table, & come armed with FACTS, not far-left "talking points."

Sheesh. I don't know why I'm even bothering, since I took real debate in school, & I'm highly skilled at it. Nevertheless, I guess this is good for closure (that fave Leftist term), so that he will know now why I ignore him...her...it...whatever. Not even worth looking up the profile.

Maggiepie

Yep, you prove yourself a spoilt little girl

all the best urban

I not well versed in the Korean war, but I know a little about Vietnam.
Who won? Once again it depends on who you ask.
I'm not sure that the Vietnamese had "better" tactics than the US, but they certainly had "different" tactics than those in which we were used to. I.E. guerrilla warfare. But the troops eventually learned how to counter some of their tactics. But I think that the main problem in Vietnam was as someone said earlier, was that congress tried to fight this war because of left wing pressure.
That coupled with guerrilla warfare, made for disaterous results. So all in all, I'd say that America did well, all things considered.

As far as urban goes, he IS a great debator, and generally has his sh!t in one sock. Rare is the occasion that I'd question his facts.

Well, as I understand it US spending and US casualties increased as time went on. But my point here is not really about the war at all, yes, I made a post designed to be tendentious to Ted, exactly to get him to try and argue his case rather than his usual blather.

all the best urban

No "attrocities" were committed "everyday" at all. In fact, even the defamed "waterboarding" was only done to a handful of people.

The fact is, the detainees at Gitmo have enjoyed a higher standard of living than any of the POWs in any war in our history... including "the good war" WWII.

It's ironic, we were considered examples of virtue and humanitarians for our treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War (EPWs) in Desert Storm where a camp was literally a few tents in the middle of the desert.

It's all propaganda, and Prs. Obama handed a victory to the terrorists in the propaganda front of this war.

Para, tell ya what. I've changed my mind. Let's BRING them here, and stick 'em in a regular U.S.S.A. prison. LET them live under the same conditions as some of our worst prisons (still paradise compared to say, CUBA'S...), let them eat the slop our cons must swallow--& it won't be geared to their religious appetites, either. Let them get harassed & killed by American cons.

In short, let's let our prisons do the job that COULD'VE been done during the war, which wasn't; they ended up at Club Gitmo, where the PCers(read: traitors) here in the U.S.S.S. have forced us to surrender. I say death to our avowed enemies.

Maggiepie

True, for liberals "Victim=Respect" and the terrorists have done a fabulous job of convincing liberals that they are the victims here.

Apparently he is clueless about what is a state issue and what is a federal government issue too. The president of the United States has no business sticking his nose in the marriage issue whatsoever.

He taught constitutional law, but seems completely ignorant about what the Constitution says.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

True, Xfahctor, in every respect, the left has imposed a standard on the US that can't possibly be met. But of course, that is one of the tricks of the propaganda trade.

Yes, as much as I respect the right of all Americans to protest a war, it does get used against us and our troops.

AMEN! Now here is a person after my own heart!

Maggiepie

Check out the little video in my profile

If there is one thing Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton proved to me, it is that no president can destroy the nation.

Realy? well wait and see

ParaTed2k wrote:

If there is one thing Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton proved to me, it is that no president can destroy the nation.

Well, Ted, no single man or woman can, but then, the leftists have managed to dilute our culture & laws & all other systems so much that one such empty suit such as Nobama can do it, because we're not dealing with a single person, but a host of committed Leftists. All Nobama must do is be the perfect figurehead, while the far Left does all the real labor below him, & the media, especially, keep the truth from the people.

Then, in return, he & his Leftest cohorts in Congress CAN change the country enough to defeat it.

It can happen, & in fact, already has, in places such as Canada, England, & to some extent, in Australia.

Keep your eyes open, my brother. Try not to let them get away with AN-Y-THING. If any single president can kill our nation, this guy is in the perfect position to do so, by executive orders, censorship, & a complete sweep of the Supreme Court's ranks with Leftists.

What I'm telling you is that we're on the sharp edge of going completely Socialist, but even now, if ENOUGH people fight back, we could reverse it. I'm not a total defeatist, just a hyper-aware realist.

Maggiepie

ROFL
ok
This must be why you got your arse handed to you in the revolutionry war and why we had to bail you out in WW I and WWII.
YOU are deluded.
Besides, you missed the entire point of the discussion, which had nothing to do with military streangth or battlefield victory. did you even read the discussion or just the title?

I must amend my comment. I misread your statement and apologize.
HOWEVER, you still have missed the point of the thread. it had nothing to do with military streangth. go and read the original post.

The US did not lose on the battlefield in Vietnam. We lost that war on the floor of the House, the Senate and mainstreet USA.

If these people in Guantanimo were placed in to the regular prison system with regular prisoners, you can guarantee they would not be nearly as safe as they are now. Right now, they are surrounded by their own kind, in a regular prison, even a U.S. military prison, they would be surrounded by people who wouldn't think twice about brutalizing or even killing them.
the broader point of the thread hwoever was that politicians can lose a war faster than any military can.

Republican Rep. Young actually proposed putting them in Alcatraz in Nanci Pelosi's state since she is such a big fan of closing Guantanamo. For some odd reason she didn't like his proposal.

lol task, because her district makes way too much money on it as a tourist trap these days.

Pelosi would be for murdering them all if they were captured under a Democrat president.

True, especially since he's been saying he has a plan all along.