Vance: America hasn't won a single war in the last 40 years

[LeGenD]

The coping is amazing! Almost Rambo esque.

Yes! USA won both wars on points!

You do not seem to understand these wars.

There were two Vietnamese states in the region: (1) North Vietnam; and (2) South Vietnam. North Vietnam was a Communist Republic led by Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was a Capitalist Republic led by Ngo Dinh Diem. North Vietnam was well-equipped to fight by Soviet Union and China and Ho Chi Minh wanted to unite both Vietnamese states (by force if necessary) but the US decided to support South Vietnam. War broke out and it was brutal on many counts as it led to deaths of millions in the region. Vietnamese terrain is largely composed of jungles, marches and mountains; these features did not provide much room for mechanized operations and bombs were also less effective in the region. American troops still managed to prevent downfall of South Vietnam and occupied parts of North Vietnam but Johnson administration failed to sell this war effort to the American Public and the successive Nixon administration decided to abandon South Vietnam. American forces were learning from their experiences in war and nearly crippled Vietcong (see Operation Linebacker) but Nixon administration did not change its position. Nevertheless, abandoning South Vietnam was a small price to pay in the larger scheme of political decisions aimed to countercheck Soviet influence and options in the Cold War.

The US employed both kinetic and diplomatic options to dismantle the Al-Qaeda Network in AfPak. On one hand, thousands of terrorists and their supporters were captured and killed in the region and the US brought perpetrators of 9/11 to justice in the process. On the other hand, the US convinced Taliban groups to drop support for the Al-Qaeda Network in Doha Accords. Trump administration wasn't interested in rebuilding Afghanistan and chose to find a way forward with Taliban groups in Doha Accords instead.

Let's not be under the illusion. The US can wipe out either country in war by employing all manner of kinetic options (if it chooses to). Trump also pointed this fact in a speech:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

But this wasn't the intent and desired outcome.

Trump is the ultimate A/B tester.

He says a lot of stuff but almost always backs down and backs down early.

US cannot face China on its own.

And China is gunning for USA.

Given Trump’s behaviour - Europeans will now extract a heavy price from US when it gets into a war of attrition with China.

China is not interested in fighting a potentially devastating war with the most powerful country in the world. This tough talk is on PDF only.

China looks forward to have a decent military capability but it has not invaded even Taiwan yet. A war is not easy to fight in a region that can elicit external support.

China is very calculative in its decisions. China will invade Taiwan when Chinese leadership will be convinced that Taiwan is internationally isolated and will not elicit external support.

 

[BananaRepublic]

You do not seem to understand these wars.

There were two Vietnamese states in the region: (1) North Vietnam; and (2) South Vietnam. North Vietnam was a Communist Republic led by Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was a Capitalist Republic led by Ngo Dinh Diem. North Vietnam was well-equipped to fight by Soviet Union and China and Ho Chi Minh wanted to unite both Vietnamese states (by force if necessary) but the US decided to support South Vietnam. War broke out and it was brutal on many counts as it led to deaths of millions in the region. Vietnamese terrain is largely composed of jungles, marches and mountains; these features did not provide much room for mechanized operations and bombs were also less effective in the region. American troops still managed to prevent downfall of South Vietnam and occupied parts of North Vietnam but Johnson administration failed to sell this war effort to the American Public and the successive Nixon administration decided to abandon South Vietnam. American forces were learning from their experiences in war and nearly crippled Vietcong (see Operation Linebacker) but Nixon administration did not change its position. Nevertheless, abandoning South Vietnam was a small price to pay in the larger scheme of political decisions aimed to countercheck Soviet influence and options in the Cold War.

The US employed both kinetic and diplomatic options to dismantle the Al-Qaeda Network in AfPak. On one hand, thousands of terrorists and their supporters were captured and killed in the region and the US brought perpetrators of 9/11 to justice in the process. On the other hand, the US convinced Taliban groups to drop support for the Al-Qaeda Network in Doha Accords. Trump administration wasn't interested in rebuilding Afghanistan and chose to find a way forward with Taliban groups in Doha Accords instead.

Let's not be under the illusion. The US can wipe out either country in war by employing all manner of kinetic options (if it chooses to). Trump also pointed this fact in a speech:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

But this wasn't the intent and desired outcome.


China is not interested in fighting a potentially devastating war with the most powerful country in the world. This tough talk is on PDF only.

China looks forward to have a decent military capability but it has not invaded even Taiwan yet. A war is not easy to fight in a region that can elicit external support.

China is very calculative in its decisions. China will invade Taiwan when Chinese leadership will be convinced that Taiwan is internationally isolated and will not elicit external support.

Your incoherent nonsense still boil downs to US losing thousands of soldiers and a hasty cowardly withdrawal.

 

[mulj]

Canadian breakthrough in the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 was a tactical victory at best as it did not translate to success in the (overarching) Nivelle Offensive.

The Catastrophe of the Nivelle Offensive - Aspects of History

the Nivelle Offensive by Alan Bardos is an account of the catastrophic attack in 1917 that cost Britain and France dearly.

aspectsofhistory.com

The US is not begging for peace in this matter but there is a difference of opinion in the US about how to engage with Russia on a broader level. Trump administration is of the view that Russia is a large country with considerable natural resources and should be treated with respect because of the potential benefits to the US in this rapprochement. Putin desire the same in fact. The ongoing war in Ukraine has certainly taken its toll on Russia on many levels but Trump administration in the US is a twist of fate for Russia.

Sorry bro, i am person of simple and clear logic and for me it is only possible conclusion when you make u turn from we support ukraina till victory to basically free hands to russia agresion on ukraina.

 

[LeGenD]

Your incoherent nonsense still boil downs to US losing thousands of soldiers and a hasty cowardly withdrawal.

Your position is devoid of logic and reason in fact. Losses are expected in a war because humans are made of flesh and bone around the world. France also suffered heavy losses in the earlier Vietnam War and China also suffered heavy losses in the next Vietnam War but I don't see you talk about these developments. I pointed out the fact that to you that Vietnamese terrain is not suitable for conducting large-scale mechanized operations and bombs are also less effective in this region. Nevertheless, American forces did not flee from Vietnam and American troops did not surrender in large numbers in virtually any battle fought in this region. American forces were learning from their experiences and nearly crippled Vietcong in Operation Linebacker in 1972 but the decision to withdraw from Vietnam was made by then President Nixon because this war effort was lacking in popular support. American journalists shed light on the fact that there was much corruption in South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese setup had to depend on the US to survive. You can see in the ongoing war between the Ukraine and Russia that both sides can fight but South Vietnamese setup was incompetent and American Public questioned the decision to preserve it.

This theme is beyond your mental capacity to understand as you show virtually no understanding of the actual battles fought and their respective outcomes in like any war. Given the fact that Bangladesh is a minnow in warfare, I can understand why Bangladeshi members typically lack in understanding of this theme. The broader reality is that the US is a superpower that crippled Soviet Union in the Cold War despite alleged setback in Vietnam. The US preserved South Korea in the face of all odds in the 1950s and helped turn Afghanistan into a graveyard of Empires for the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The US have demonstrated the capacity to fight on different fronts at the same time in World War and also in recent years and have eliminated Saddam setup in Iraq and the Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan in the process. The US does have sufficient kinetic strength and options to literally wipe out any country in war if it chooses to. Talk about alleged failures of others when YOU are something big yourself instead of writing off responses given to you in good faith because you show your ignorance in the end.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Your position is devoid of logic and reason in fact. Losses are expected in a war because humans are made of flesh and bone around the world. France also suffered heavy losses in the earlier Vietnam War and China also suffered heavy losses in the next Vietnam War but I don't see you talk about these developments. I pointed out the fact that to you that Vietnamese terrain is not suitable for conducting large-scale mechanized operations and bombs are also less effective in this region. Nevertheless, American forces did not flee from Vietnam and American troops did not surrender in large numbers in virtually any battle fought in this region. American forces were learning from their experiences and nearly crippled Vietcong in Operation Linebacker in 1972 but the decision to withdraw from Vietnam was made by then President Nixon because this war effort was lacking in popular support. American journalists shed light on the fact that there was much corruption in South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese setup had to depend on the US to survive. You can see in the ongoing war between the Ukraine and Russia that both sides can fight but South Vietnamese setup was incompetent and American Public questioned the decision to preserve it.

This theme is beyond your mental capacity to understand as you show virtually no understanding of the actual battles fought and their respective outcomes in like any war. Given the fact that Bangladesh is a minnow in warfare, I can understand why Bangladeshi members typically lack in understanding of this theme. The broader reality is that the US is a superpower that crippled Soviet Union in the Cold War despite alleged setback in Vietnam. The US preserved South Korea in the face of all odds in the 1950s and helped turn Afghanistan into a graveyard of Empires for the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The US have demonstrated the capacity to fight on different fronts at the same time in World War and also in recent years and have eliminated Saddam setup in Iraq and the Al-Qaeda Network in Afghanistan in the process. The US does have sufficient kinetic strength and options to literally wipe out any country in war if it chooses to. Talk about alleged failures of others when YOU are something big yourself instead of writing off responses given to you in good faith because you show your ignorance in the end.

Again a long incoherent ramble. But still cannot erase that facts on the ground.

Lost the wars and had to make a hasty humiliating cowardice escape.

 

[Yellow is Okay]

You do not seem to understand these wars.

There were two Vietnamese states in the region: (1) North Vietnam; and (2) South Vietnam. North Vietnam was a Communist Republic led by Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was a Capitalist Republic led by Ngo Dinh Diem. North Vietnam was well-equipped to fight by Soviet Union and China and Ho Chi Minh wanted to unite both Vietnamese states (by force if necessary) but the US decided to support South Vietnam. War broke out and it was brutal on many counts as it led to deaths of millions in the region. Vietnamese terrain is largely composed of jungles, marches and mountains; these features did not provide much room for mechanized operations and bombs were also less effective in the region. American troops still managed to prevent downfall of South Vietnam and occupied parts of North Vietnam but Johnson administration failed to sell this war effort to the American Public and the successive Nixon administration decided to abandon South Vietnam. American forces were learning from their experiences in war and nearly crippled Vietcong (see Operation Linebacker) but Nixon administration did not change its position. Nevertheless, abandoning South Vietnam was a small price to pay in the larger scheme of political decisions aimed to countercheck Soviet influence and options in the Cold War.

The US employed both kinetic and diplomatic options to dismantle the Al-Qaeda Network in AfPak. On one hand, thousands of terrorists and their supporters were captured and killed in the region and the US brought perpetrators of 9/11 to justice in the process. On the other hand, the US convinced Taliban groups to drop support for the Al-Qaeda Network in Doha Accords. Trump administration wasn't interested in rebuilding Afghanistan and chose to find a way forward with Taliban groups in Doha Accords instead.

Let's not be under the illusion. The US can wipe out either country in war by employing all manner of kinetic options (if it chooses to). Trump also pointed this fact in a speech:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

But this wasn't the intent and desired outcome.


China is not interested in fighting a potentially devastating war with the most powerful country in the world. This tough talk is on PDF only.

China looks forward to have a decent military capability but it has not invaded even Taiwan yet. A war is not easy to fight in a region that can elicit external support.

China is very calculative in its decisions. China will invade Taiwan when Chinese leadership will be convinced that Taiwan is internationally isolated and will not elicit external support.

I agree with your point about Vietnam's terrain being a major factor in countering large-scale mechanized warfare, but there are a few misconceptions. By the time of the Vietnam War, Ho Chi Minh was more of a symbolic figure than an active leader. Vo Nguyen Giap had been sidelined, and Truong Chinh was publicly focused on strengthening the North first. The real driving force behind the war for reunification was Le Duan. He was also the one who aggressively moved against the Chinese and the Southern Vietnamese bourgeoisie after the war and later led the fight against the Khmer Rouge. Despite his significant role, Le Duan's legacy has largely faded, and most Vietnamese today barely know about him. I would say this was one of the factors that made it easier for Vietnam to eventually normalize relations with China.

But it was not until 1978, when the relationship between Vietnam and China became worse and worse after the unification of South and North Vietnam, did Mr. Le Duan realize that...

In 1954, the signing of the Geneva Agreement broke Mr. Le Duan's perception of that comradeship. Although before, like many other leaders of Vietnam, Mr. Le Duan really believed that China was a long-term friend of the Vietnamese revolution.

Mr. Viet Phuong - who used to be Secretary to both Prime Minister Pham Van Dong and TBT Le Duan when he was alive, said about the Geneva Agreement as follows: "In Geneva - Switzerland, China - with its influence, insisted on choosing the 17th parallel as the boundary line dividing the South - North. When we discussed this issue with China, they said: "Comrades, let us improvise at our discretion".When saying that, the Chinese have given themselves the right to determine the fate of the Vietnamese people at the negotiating table".

When the Geneva Agreement was signed, Mr. Le Duan was on his way from the South to the North to report to Uncle Ho and the Central Government on the revolutionary situation throughout the South. Mr. Le Duan also prepared a draft of important issues for the negotiation in Geneva. But when he arrived at Inter-zone 5, he was surprised to hear that the Geneva Agreement had been signed on July 21, 1954. All that night, he stayed up.

Mr. Le Duan firmly opposes the division of the country. If it is forced to do so, the separation must be at the 13th parallel, not at the 17th parallel. But everything happened very differently in Geneva.

The next day, Le Duan received a phone call from Uncle Ho, asking him to return to the South to talk to his compatriots. On the way, watching the Southern soldiers and people raise their fingers to greet each other - both a symbol of victory (victory) - and a promise to reunite in 2 years, he cried, because he knew there would never be a general election, it would never be just 2 years. Then your country will be divided, your people will still be bloodshed.

https://m.cafef.vn/thai-do-cua-tbt-...u-chien-tranh-bien-gioi-20190216140406281.chn

 

[LeGenD]

Again a long incoherent ramble. But still cannot erase that facts on the ground.

Lost the wars and had to make a hasty humiliating cowardice escape.

Was Vietcong's Tet Offensive in 1968 successful?
Which side gained ground in the strategically important A Sầu Valley in 1969?
Was Vietcong's Easter Offensive in 1972 successful?

I am trying to be respectful but you seem to lack the intellect to discuss this topic with maturity. When mighty Bangladesh will learn to fight a war and have any achievements to talk about, we shall talk. Your keyboard warrior persona is amusing otherwise.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Look at this keyboard critic and warrior, when mighty Bangladesh will learn to fight a war, we shall talk.

You need comprehension skills!

I already stated clearly upfront - we Bangladeshis don’t see ourselves as mighty.

We don’t invade other countries or exploit them.

And neither do we run away like cowards.

US, on the other hand, has a habit of starting wars then running away like rats!

 

[LeGenD]

You need comprehension skills!

I already stated clearly upfront - we Bangladeshis don’t see ourselves as mighty.

We don’t invade other countries or exploit them.

And neither do we run away like cowards.

US, on the other hand, has a habit of starting wars then running away like rats!

From how many regions in the world did you see the US retreat in war? American military footprint is global and in many countries around the world. Step out from your cozy home and see the world or have a look at maps.

 

[Abid123]

The US does have sufficient kinetic strength and options to literally wipe out any country in war if it chooses to.

Sure, and in return, the US would be showered with thousands of ICBMs from Russia, China and North Korea turning it into a radioactive wasteland.

 

[BananaRepublic]

From how many regions in the world did you see the US retreat in war? American military footprint is global and in many countries around the world. Step out from your cozy home and see the world or have a look at maps.

Everywhere US has fought in since WW2 - it has had to make a cowardice retreat.

I forgot Lebanon!

Lol

 

[BananaRepublic]

Perhaps even, the Europeans might see this as an opportunity to gain ground globally, which they lost to the US for decades. They might be smelling blood, and deciding now is the best time to regain geopolitical momentum.

Europe made a mutually profitable bargain with US:

1. Europe focuses on high end manufacturing and luxury goods.

2. US monopolises high finance underpinned by the dollar.

3. Europeans cede military and security strategy to US in return for US using the dollar to fund most of it.

Trump has come and upended it because his billionaire controllers aren’t making even more money.

Trump and his billionaire handlers want European to be as subservient as the Arabs.

We are about to discover again what happens when white privilege clashes with white supremacy.

Millions were killed in two world wars.

 

[VCheng]

From how many regions in the world did you see the US retreat in war? American military footprint is global and in many countries around the world. Step out from your cozy home and see the world or have a look at maps.

Let them say what they want. They may yet get their wish: It is not too far fetched to assume that USA will go isolationist and withdraw, and many regions will long for the days of old when there was US presence and involvement in their region.

The American people are sick of carrying global burdens that are not theirs to bear and being hated for it on top of that load by hypocrites (the endless Iranian shilling and commiebot dick helicoptering being routine here, for example).

Let the rest of the world sort itself out. At the very least, it will be entertaining to watch. USA itself will do just fine, and of that I am quite sure.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Let them say what they want. They may yet get their wish: It is not too far fetched to assume that USA will go isolationist and withdraw, and many regions will long for the days of old when there was US presence and involvement in their region.

The American people are sick of carrying global burdens that are not theirs to bear and being hated for it on top of that load by hypocrites (the endless Iranian shilling and commiebot dick helicoptering being routine here, for example).

Let the rest of the world sort itself out. At the very least, it will be entertaining to watch. USA itself will do just fine, and of that I am quite sure.

Straight out of Kipling!

“White men’s burden”

Lol

The same white men who created two world wars where they butchered each other like rapid animals!

Then nearly 50 years of Cold War. Then butchery, tiny bit of respite and back to behaving like wild animals!

No thanks!

We don’t need animals watching over us!

 

[That_Guy]

Let them say what they want. They may yet get their wish: It is not too far fetched to assume that USA will go isolationist and withdraw, and many regions will long for the days of old when there was US presence and involvement in their region.

The American people are sick of carrying global burdens that are not theirs to bear and being hated for it on top of that load by hypocrites (the endless Iranian shilling and commiebot dick helicoptering being routine here, for example).

Let the rest of the world sort itself out. At the very least, it will be entertaining to watch. USA itself will do just fine, and of that I am quite sure.

This is a moralistic argument.

The reality is that the US didn't have a presence in foreign nations because they had a moral duty to protect them, but rather it was because all roads MUST lead to Washington. The US economy is almost entirely dependent on trade routes almost completely dominated by the US navy and US foreign expeditionary forces (aka marine core). Those military bases make sure that vital resources and trade goods/supplies flow to the borders of the USA without hindrance and interruption. Why do you think the US is so aggressive when it comes to the straite of Malacca, or the Houthis blocking shipping?

The US will NOT be fine if it goes isolationist, and withdraws from the global market. It's economy WILL collapse, because it is so heavily reliant on the global supply chain, and its demands to feed, house, and entertain over 400 million people simply cannot be met with domestic production as they simply do not have the resources alone.