865
submitted 10 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

No. The Vietnamese did not "break" the US military. We got tired of being there, though.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I hate to be the one to break it to you... but the Vietnamese broke the US military. Swallow all the cope the propagandists have been spoon-feeding you about this since the 70s - it doesn't change anything.

[-] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

What do you mean by "broke"? I'm quite literally in a class on the Vietnam War this semester, writing a paper about how ineffective our policy of bombing an agrarian society that only needed to supply its forces 50 tons of supplies a day.

Please, elaborate.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

ineffective our policy of bombing an agrarian society

"Ineffective" at what? The indiscriminate carnage that the US visited on SE Asia from the air was possibly the most effective mass-slaughter campaign ever perpetrated by a colonialist power - it was even more effective than the colonialist slaughter Germany visited on eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during WW2.

So no... as far as the tenets of colonialist warfare is concerned, it was perfectly effective.

[-] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

At stopping supplies and people from moving south?

So, our goal was genocide? I'm not saying we were the good guys, but clearly we weren't comparable to the fucking Nazis eastern campaign.

You still didn't answer what it meant to break the US military.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

but clearly we weren’t comparable to the fucking Nazis

Actually, the US actions in SE Asia is very comparable to what Germany and it's allies did in eastern Europe and Russia... not even the Nazis attempted to use chemical warfare to starve their victim population into submission - the US did.

What the Nazis did was nothing unique - it has been standard fare for colonialist powers long before WW2 happened, and it was stadard fare for the US both before and during the (so-called) "Cold War." The only reason the Nazis became infamous for it was because they literally perpetrated it on the (so-called) "civilized" world's doorstep on people that looked "white."

You still didn’t answer what it meant to break the US military.

That's because I won't - there is no need. Col. Robert D. Heinl answered this all the way back in 1971.

TLDR - “Our Army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

[-] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What the Nazis did was nothing unique - it has been standard fare for colonialist powers long before WW2 happened, and it was stadard fare for the US both before and during the (so-called) “Cold War.”

Homie, I think you should learn some more about the eastern front. The United States wasn't on an ethnic cleansing campaign in Indochina. The Nazi's were on an ethnic cleansing campaign.

TLDR - “Our Army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

Which had had which major defeats associated with it?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Homie,

We are not friends.

You mean like this? Oops, sorry... wrong war. It's not my fault - when you get into the grisly details they all start looking the same.

The United States wasn’t on an ethnic cleansing campaign

Ooooh... you completely got me there. The millions dead in the Congo thanks to Belgium exploitation? Perfectly okay because it wasn't a clear-cut case of "ethnic cleansing." The millions starved to death in Bengal due to British colonialist policies during WW2? Perfectly fine because it wasn't a clear-cut case of "ethnic cleansing."

If only Hitler had you around to handle his PR for him, eh?

Which had had which major defeats associated with it?

I'm just going to go ahead and assume it's also a complete mystery to you why the vaunted US military failed so abysmally in Afghanistan, eh?

It's only a mystery to you and your ilk - why do you think that is?

[-] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

My Lai was not an ethnic cleansing campaign. It was not directed by the White House or the Pentagon. It was a massacre that had an attempted cover up.

Is it really that hard to understand that something can be illegal, unethical, and immoral, and not be ethnic cleansing?

British colonialist policies during WW2

’m just going to go ahead and assume it’s also a complete mystery to you why the vaunted US military failed so abysmally in Afghanistan, eh?

This discussion is on vietnam, but cool.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

My Lai was not an ethnic cleansing

Oh... you didn't get this the first time around. Here... let me help you along and repost it for you because you sure look like this is going to take you a lot of effort to get.

Ooooh… you completely got me there. The millions dead in the Congo thanks to Belgium exploitation? Perfectly okay because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.” The millions starved to death in Bengal due to British colonialist policies during WW2? Perfectly fine because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.”

Also, why bring up My Lai? There was nothing unique about My Lai - except for the fact that it ended up being reported in the US media because one chopper crew decided to grow a backbone and put a stop to it (for once). For the US military in Vietnam, My Lai was Tuesday.

This discussion is on vietnam

So do tell... how does a military end up being completely broken by a (supposedly) "inferior" enemy without actually having lost any decisive battles?

I'd hate to think what would have actually happened if the US had lost a clear-cut battle in Vietnam - the entire US may just have imploded in on itself due to shock.

[-] Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I could have worded that better, my apologies there. The fact that someone stopped it, I think really is a difference.

I never once said anything about the Vietcong being inferior.

I'm done here, but I do suggest you go and do some more reading. Maybe watch Ken Burns Vietnam documentary to get started with.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

I never once said anything about the Vietcong being inferior.

This is not about what you said or didn't say. The US empire is a fundamentally white supremacist empire - no different than the fundamentally white supremacist empires that gave birth to it - and therefore views anyone it wishes to subjugate, exploit and/or exterminate as "inferior."

but I do suggest you go and do some more reading.

You first.

this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
865 points (97.2% liked)

News

23669 readers
3341 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS