Did America lose any battles?

[Curious George]

In the past, the side whose military was defeated and who lost land or ran away from the field was the loser and the other victorious.

So the North Vietnamese were victorious, as the U.S. ran away from the field of battle.

 

[Father Heathen]

I find this passive attitude disturbing. We must always stand up to defeat tyranny. I’m not advocating war mongering. But I am saying if we have the ability we must combat tyranny. Hitler being the prime example.

But "fighting tyranny" is just a bull**** pretext considering that we've a history of befriending and even installing despotic regimes out of political convenience.

 

[Sunstone]

Not just battles. We lost the whole war on drugs.

And the war on poverty.

 

[Watchmen]

But "fighting tyranny" is just a bull**** pretext considering that we've a history of befriending and even installing despotic regimes out of political convenience.

We shouldn’t be doing that either, but it doesn’t negate that we should battle tyranny when necessary. Again, Hitler is a prime example or are you suggesting we shouldn’t have combated Hitler?

 

[Father Heathen]

We shouldn’t be doing that either, but it doesn’t negate that we should battle tyranny when necessary. Again, Hitler is a prime example or are you suggesting we shouldn’t have combated Hitler?

Of course we should've fought Hitler. I'm simply saying that if we proclaim to fight for freedom and against tyranny, we need to be consistent about it.

 

[Sunstone]

The US has lost -- or is likely to lose -- every significant war it's gotten into since it tied in Korea. But we do win battles.

Typical Americans. Geniuses on tactics, morons on strategies.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It would depend on the battle and what one side gains from it.

Hence why counting them is useless.
As Pyrrhus and Sun Tzu would agree.

 

[BSM1]

We would have had to cross the demilitarized zone, and occupied North Vietnam, and we could have done that.

We could have mined Haiphong Harbor, bombed Hanoi, supported our troops and untied their hands...

 

[Sunstone]

We would have had to cross the demilitarized zone, and occupied North Vietnam, and we could have done that.

You're not thinking strategically. I guess that makes you a good American then. But let me ask you anyway: What was the grand objective of the US in Viet Nam? Was it to conquer the North, or was it to defend the South?

 

[Sunstone]

By the way, during the Viet Nam War, the general staffs of something like 11 countries studied the war and published their views about how the US could win it. Amazingly, almost all 11 agreed on the strategy the US should adopt to achieve its goals in Viet Nam.

The US ignored their findings for political reasons.

 

[Deeje]

I find this passive attitude disturbing. We must always stand up to defeat tyranny. I’m not advocating war mongering. But I am saying if we have the ability we must combat tyranny. Hitler being the prime example.

Can I just ask you if Jesus set this example? Who exercised more tyranny than Rome? Did Jesus tell his disciples to combat the Romans in any way?

On the contrary, he lived up to his words....."You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing?" (Matthew 5:43-47)

How can you love your enemies if you are shooting at them?

Does God figure in your worldview? He has already told us about the march of world powers in Daniel 2:31-45. We have never had to take matters into our own hands. The victories were already foretold. Starting with Babylon > Medo-Persia > Greece > Rome > Britain > Anglo-America. World powers end with those we have at present.

We shouldn’t be doing that either, but it doesn’t negate that we should battle tyranny when necessary. Again, Hitler is a prime example or are you suggesting we shouldn’t have combated Hitler?

Jesus was not a pacifist, but he never once advocated taking matters into our own hands with violence. He told us to be no part of this world because it is ruled by God's enemy (1 John 5:19) The world will function without our political participation or interference, and it will come all the way to its end just as the Bible foretells. We don't have to disobey the Christ to be a good citizen of our nation.

That is what I believe.

 

[Duke_Leto]

I think that, slowly, the whole concept of "battles" is becoming outdated. We no longer have two armies that go head-to-head in one specific area. We instead have hundreds or thousands of fireteams and squads each fighting for control of one or two strategic points or zones.

That's only really the case in asymmetrical warfare.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're not thinking strategically. I guess that makes you a good American then. But let me ask you anyway: What was the grand objective of the US in Viet Nam? Was it to conquer the North, or was it to defend the South?

It was to prevent a domino falling...
(With South Vietnam being the domino)

 

[Sunstone]

It was to prevent a domino falling...
(With South Vietnam being the domino)

Pretty much. In translation, the US objective was to defend the South, rather than to conquer the North. Now, the general staffs of about 11 nations -- including Britain, Germany, Israel, and even Brazil (if I recall now) -- more or less came up with the same plan to achieve the goal of defending the South. The US refused to adopt that plan for political reasons.

 

[Spiderman]

You're not thinking strategically. I guess that makes you a good American then. But let me ask you anyway: What was the grand objective of the US in Viet Nam? Was it to conquer the North, or was it to defend the South?

The goal was to stop South Vietnam from becoming communist. In order to do that and succeed, we would have had to occupy the North. They kept crossing the demilitarized zone and attacking, and most of the bombs we dropped by far were in the jungle rather than on North Vietnamese cities. By not invading North Vietnam, we let them repeatedly build up and repeatedly attack. We should have never gotten involved in that war, but to win would have required an invasion of North Vietnam

 

[Spiderman]

So the North Vietnamese were victorious, as the U.S. ran away from the field of battle.

Yes

 

[Sunstone]

The goal was to stop South Vietnam from becoming communist. In order to do that and succeed, we would have had to occupy the North.

Not according to the general staffs of about 11 nations. According to them, there was a way we could have defended the South without occupying the North.

The concern at the time was that occupying the North would trigger the Chinese Army to cross the border and attack the occupying troops -- just as the Chinese did in Korea when the allies occupied North Korea. No one wanted that to happen. So occupying the North was off the table in Viet Nam.

 

[Spiderman]

The ironic thing about Vietnam, is after the Communists took over Vietnam, the Communist Chinese (their allies) started a war with Vietnam where they invaded the North.

 

[Sunstone]

The ironic thing about Vietnam, is after the Communists took over Vietnam, the Communist Chinese (their allies) started a war with Vietnam where they invaded the North.

That's true. The Chinese and Vietnamese have long been at odds with each other despite the fact that the Vietnamese have for centuries been importing and assimilating Chinese culture. They were able to unite -- more or less -- against the Americans, though.

 

[Salvador]

America has lost most of its battles as well as this nation is losing the war against drugs. It's time to treat drug addiction as a public health crisis rather than as a war against drug dealers and their customers.