You can destroy an entire country but you can't destroy a people. The U.S. tried to stop the north's guerrilla forces in South Vietnam by actually destroying enemy forces in South Vietnam (I don't know what part of this you don't understand but it is documented in archives), but because the Vietnamese were so well trained and because the north already established an entire party in the south there was no way the U.S. could win in the context of the Cold War. With the growing popularity of the PDPA in the south, the U.S. had no chance (the Tet Offensive proved this--highlightedby a general uprising and a revolution--the North defeated the U.S. in a battle of wits). This is one of the reasons why they lost. You don't understand how much the U.S. destroyed and how many lives they had taken in Vietnam (ever heard of the My Lai Massacre?). No one was ordering them around. Don't be such a fool. Vietnamese tactics were insane, such as living underground until the U.S. would pass by them above ground. You can say however much the Americans weren't allowed to fire but in the end they did anyway.
killercuts3
:lol: What a load of rubbish. The problem with the US in Vietnam was they thought their technological and military supremacy would win them the war by default. They didn't have a clue fighting against guerilla asymmetric warfare. And they took a beating and lost. Don't try to change the truth.
Sadly for the US the same mistakes are happening in its failing war on terror. It doesn't have a clue how to fight against asymmetric guerilla warfare, much of the reason why a few thousand militia men in the middle east have had so much success.
I suppose you're gonna tell me the US has defeated terrorism in the middle east and I'm posting lies. :roll:
Hoobinator
I believe you're over-analyzing his statement. What he's effectively saying is that if militarism were internationally permitted to operate as it once did, conflicts and wars that the U.S. gets involved in would be successful in terms of U.S. interests (yes, that means Iraq and Vietnam), due to both underlying precepts of Western culture and representative democracy and international consensus, nation-states that now employ such tactics are subject to War Crimes charges under international law codified by the Hague conventions, Nuremburg Trials, and London Charter. The U.S. government often bends these rules (and some of their own previously legislated laws), but this is irrelevant when you consider how warfare and regional (and eventually global) politics operated throughout human history until the 20th century. The general control that Western Civilization has maintained throughout the world economically and politically would be contingent upon the U.S. operating as imperialist or militarist states, kingdoms, and empires have always operated, which throughout the 20th century was proven to be impossible through the development of regionally independent forms of warfare (guerilla warfare) that was considered archaic and ineffective by modern North American and European militaries (and still is today). Additionally, the generally increasing literacy rate in underdeveloped and developing nations, self-determination, nationalism, and anti-imperialist or anti-European/American sentiment contributed to the necessary dismemberment of the European and American empires and creation and international recognition of numerous states. Through this, as well as the creation of the U.N. and the precedents set by the punishment of various individuals involved in such events as the Holocaust and Rape of Nanking in Japan and Germany following WWII, nations such as the U.S., France, England, Germany, and Japan are prevented from undertaking the very same warfare that various nations, groups, and organizations throughout South America, the Middle East, and East Asia have utilized following WWII. Warfare, in general, "congressionally" declared or otherwise, is inevitably horrific, and massacres and dubious military tactics are always undertaken by both sides, and always has been. The reality is that our world has never seen a modern U.S. or England wage Total War on a given nation, whether it be the Falklands, Vietnam, or Iraq, international law will never all developed nations to utilize their arsenal and personnel without restrictive restraint. Disregard for human rights is necessary for effective marginalization and control of a given population. Resources cannot be exploited when our culture dictates that we operate humanely in military combat.
So we're stuck, as an entire culture, do we allow a decrease in our general living standard to effectively redistribute wealth, assets, labor, and collective nationalized cultivation and production of resources, thus contributed to a greater degree of diplomacy on a global level between Western nations and developing or underdeveloped nations (like Vietnam and Afghanistan), or do we come to terms with what is necessary for the redevelopment and consolidation of our standard of living? Something which, due to factors that contributed to the organizational and political success of autocratic/theocratic/pseudo-communist regimes, would be far more brutal than any event in human history. Like another poster said, in less romantic terms, "They die but the hope lives on." The idea that we as a culture would be capable of such brutality is inconceivable. So effectively, modern warfare is just ensuring further competition and conflict without conclusion similar to the Vietnam Conflict and Falklands War.
I also notice a hint of European anti-American sentiment. Remember, your respective nations did not only contribute to imperialism, modern warfare, exploitation of the world's resources, marginalization of hundreds of nationalities, industrialization, and globalized capitalism, but laid the foundation that the U.S. expanded upon following WWII, sans imperialism, and likewised have contributed to almost every U.S. offensive, as well as undertook unethical military operations independently (the Franco-Vietnam or First Indochina War in the late 40's and early 50's, as well as the Falklands War in the early 80's.) The nations of Europe are no more innocent than the United States. There's a REASON the very same organizations and groups that have cells in North America also have cells in Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany....
Finally, in response to the TC, I've always dreamed of an able developer not only developing warfare titles focusing on various operations and wars throughout history, but also developing titles from the perspective of forces NOT aligned with England, U.S., and France.
Log in to comment