The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Here you can discuss anything froth related that does not fit into another forum, or indeed any nonsense that should enter your head.

Moderator: FU!UK Committee

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Macunaima nlimmm » Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:46 pm

Ironically enough, DR Gibbin’s book was a response to state-directed gistorical revisionism in the 1980s, which sought to cast Vietnam as a victory betrayed by “libruls”.

If you like his book, his second book, Warrior Dreams, goes a long way to explaining the Walt culture that has infected TNP.
User avatar
Macunaima nlimmm
 

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Just inquiring » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:32 pm

Can someone clarify how many victories the US would have needed to win the war that they lost?
User avatar
Just inquiring
 

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby General Paranoia » Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:58 pm

Just inquiring wrote:Can someone clarify how many victories the US would have needed to win the war that they lost?

I'm sure Condi will be along shortly with some spurious links to explain that the US never lost a battle even when defeated and how some other uninvolved country was worse.
Editor in Chief Bill wrote:It also 'thins the herd' so to speak, so that marginal and under-financed companies fall off the radar, leaving the better managed companies to dominate the news sphere.
TMP - killing off small companies!
User avatar
General Paranoia
 
Posts: 10102
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:13 am
Location: Helping Bill make the right choices

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:01 pm

sebigboss79nli wrote:
Condottiero wrote:
sebigboss79 wrote:
Condottiero wrote:Name a PAVN general who routed US forces.


Which part of routing them is required to win the war (or a battle)? Correct, NONE whatsoever.
However, if running was not required why call it "Operation Frequent Wind" 0;)

Not going to answer the question are you? Show me another example of Dien Bien Phu...



Changing the question does not alter the result. The Yanks lost, the French at least forced a decisive battle while the yanke ran with the tail between their legs

The question has always been the same, but you're not answering it, because you don't know the answer, especially since you lump in VC and NVA. What's with using OPFOR on a non technical forum? It makes you look like tool, no different than Legion4! Those listed pages neither refutes my position nor reinforces yours: that North Vietnamese commanders were master tacticians. Operation Frequent Wind was in 75, while the last US troops were withdrawn by the end of 73.
*SVM MALLEVS CVNNORVM*

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
- Alphonse Karr
User avatar
Condottiero
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:16 pm
Location: Iserlohn Fortress

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:03 pm

Macnamara wrote:How do you account for US failure in Vietnam then, Condi?
And try doing it without blaming the media.

Enough with the strawman positions!
*SVM MALLEVS CVNNORVM*

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
- Alphonse Karr
User avatar
Condottiero
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:16 pm
Location: Iserlohn Fortress

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:17 pm

Macunaima nlinn wrote:Well, I actually agree with Condi in part. The NLF/NVA wanted to win battles like Dien Bien Phu against the U.S. and couldn’t. Thus by their own metric, they lost tactically.

But it was by a cunt’s hair in some cases.

Furthermore, in terms of STRATEGY, they were spot on. They knew that all they had to do was to bleed the U.S. indefinitely and they’d eventually win. The U.S. knew this too, and from the beginning.

Given that tactics should follow strategy, the NLF/NVA did a pretty damned good job. They didn’t make their prime goal (another Dien Bien Phu) but they did a damned good job of consistently making their secondary goals (grab onto the American’s belt and make them bleed) and that was enough to win. More than enough.

And the U.S. knew that BEFORE they got sucked into Vietnam. Four presidents did all they could to lie to the public about that salient fact.

So Condi’s real problem is that he seems to think battles are clearly won or lost according to the rules, of, say, football. The NLF/NVA did indeed largely dictate when and where fights would take place and, although they had their fantasizing moments, too (i.e. Tet will push the Yanks into the sea), they by and large had a competent strategy, stuck to it, and made their tactics serve it.

Both the Yanks and NVA/NLF sucked at operations, however, and that is one reason why the war dragged on so long.

By the way, Condi, if you want to talk “revisionist history”, let’s talk the late 1990s revision of Tet into a clear cut allied victory.

The NVA did try and pull another Dien Bien Phu, but they underestimated the fact that progress had been made in air support tactics. I don't think victory is determined by clear cut rules on a checklist, but the PAVN commanders weren't better than US ones, simply for being Asian, implied by smeghead.

Tet was a tactical victory for the US, but a strategic loss due to the casualty count...
*SVM MALLEVS CVNNORVM*

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
- Alphonse Karr
User avatar
Condottiero
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:16 pm
Location: Iserlohn Fortress

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Macunaima nli m » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:23 pm

Like I said, the U.S. lost the war and it wasn’t due to “librul backstabbing”. And yes, American conservatives have trouble getting their head around that salient, empirical fact.

Thus began the first wave of historical revisionism, in the Reagan 80s, lead by conservatives who argued, like Condi, that the U.S. never lost a battle and that the logical upshot of this was that the U.S. COULDN’T have lost the war without some sort of internal betrayal.

This, obviously, ignores a salient and indisputable political fact: that every American president from Eisenhower to Ford KNEW FULL WELL that the U.S. couldn’t win a land war in Asia for a series of very obvious reasons.

Now, the left idea that the NVA/NLF forces (and the two were certainly more in line with each other than the RVN/US positions were) were clever Asia strategists that outthought the western imperialists through Yellow Magic was ridiculous and, as Condi points out, more than a bit racist. The NVA/NLF manifestly wanted another Dien Bien Phu-style decisive victory, tried to get it a few times, and fell short.

And yeah, this was a victory that was supposed to be in a Western, “conventional” mold, not some sort of inscrutable Asia “anti-strategy”.

However, when they didn’t get that victory, UNLIKE the Americans, they didn’t reinforce failure and returned to the anti-conventional guerrilla warfare that has proven much more deadly to imperial ambitions — in the west and east — since the Iron Age, at the very least.

Gibbon’s book does fall a bit into the “inscrutable Asians” stereotype, but it is MOSTLY a critique of American warmaking and a very good one, at that. It shows how and why the U.S. was unable to change its tactics or strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence that they didn’t work.

It also shows, indirectly, why “nation building” and “low intensity warfare” have been repeatedly and unsuccessfully “reinvented” by the U.S. in the half century since the Vietnam War, with similar negative results.

Like I said, at the bottom of all this is an American view that wars are, by necessity, relatively short and decisive, with little to no American blood to be expended. A simple way of looking at it (parodied to good effect in the MASH movie) is that Americans really do seem to see warfare as football.

They are probably going to continue to do so until they are as devastated by a war as Europe was in WWII. Trump is off to a good start in heading them that way.
User avatar
Macunaima nli m
 

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Condottiero » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:24 pm

Macunaima nlimmm wrote:Ironically enough, DR Gibbin’s book was a response to state-directed gistorical revisionism in the 1980s, which sought to cast Vietnam as a victory betrayed by “libruls”.

If you like his book, his second book, Warrior Dreams, goes a long way to explaining the Walt culture that has infected TNP.

Its' Gibson, not Gibbins, and no have issue with his PhD, just issues with arseholes using it as an excuse to silence discussion. No different than some shit peddling someone's book on Faux News and touting the bibliography.
*SVM MALLEVS CVNNORVM*

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
- Alphonse Karr
User avatar
Condottiero
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:16 pm
Location: Iserlohn Fortress

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Macunaima nlimm » Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:26 pm

Here is a legitimate “orientalism”, however: I’m not sure that the Chinese military tradition makes a clear cut decision between tactics and strategy as the Clausewitzian tradition does. It does indeed seem that Tsun Tsu sees warfare in a much more wholistic fashion than the Enlightenment-oriented Clausewitz.

Given this, it’s an open question whether or not your distinction between “tactical” and “strategic” victories is anything other than a philosophical tautology, Condi. Speaking as an anthro, here.
User avatar
Macunaima nlimm
 

Re: The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

Postby Picador » Sat Dec 07, 2019 7:14 pm

Condottiero wrote:
Tet was a tactical victory for the US, but a strategic loss due to the casualty count...


Fuck me, and you accuse others of being thick? :roll:
Stone Mountain's OK with IP theft, so Bill deleted his thread to protect him from looking a cunt.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg ... ?id=521602
Picador
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:28 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Froth Pot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Jakar Nilson and 55 guests