Thread: Shit hits the fan in Korea

Originally Posted by jarrhead

I was skywatching last night, not for stars. I saw some awesome new planes. They were like stealth fighters, but gray and dome shaped instead of black and triangular, and ran on white heat (i'm guessing underside thrusters?)

Good god they were fast.. I'd estimate mach 3. There was a very significant delay between sight and sound.

That's really trippy. I totally believe in U.F.O.'s like that because I have seen off the wall stuff like that too.

I was sitting on my porch in Mississippi at about 3 a.m. a few years ago and saw a white dot move from way south to way north in about 25 seconds. It looked like a shooting star, except it maintained constant shape and speed and moved completely horizontally the whole time. I could not hear it at all. That is just one of my six U.F.O. stories. Something is going on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That's really trippy. I totally believe in U.F.O.'s like that because I have seen off the wall stuff like that too.

I was sitting on my porch in Mississippi at about 3 a.m. a few years ago and saw a white dot move from way south to way north in about 25 seconds. It looked like a shooting star, except it maintained constant shape and speed and moved completely horizontally the whole time. I could not hear it at all. That is just one of my six U.F.O. stories. Something is going on.

Exactly what I saw, except it wasn't a dot, it was definitely an aircraft.

BUT I live next to the world's largest military base. It's two miles away.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is completely relevant to the issue of whether the United States has enough military power to handle an invasion from China. That is where this conversation was supposed to be going.

Only as a demonstration that our comparative military power is a poor indicator of whether we would prevail in a conflict.

It's a huge indicator. It's just not a 100% indicator of whether or not we can get somebody else to surrender when we are fighting them in their country. We were discussing whether we could outpower China if they came here and tried to take over. I think our history has shown that we could. And you know we would never surrender in a situation like that. They would have to kill the vast majority of the country to ever have smooth sailing running things here, at which point there would be hardly anybody to control.

Originally Posted by jarrhead

I was skywatching last night, not for stars. I saw some awesome new planes. They were like stealth fighters, but gray and dome shaped instead of black and triangular, and ran on white heat (i'm guessing underside thrusters?)

Good god they were fast.. I'd estimate mach 3. There was a very significant delay between sight and sound.



And no, it was NOT one of these. Much more round, flat, saucer shaped.

Are you sure they weren't UAV's? They have some pretty crazy looking UAV's now. Also Mach 3 may be a bit of an exageration since only a few "traditional" jets have ever been able to go that fast and they have since been retired as far as I know. And if they were going Mach 3, they wouldn't do it at a low enough altitude where they were visible to the naked eye.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now divide 2,000,000 by 58,000 and tell me what it says about who got bitch slapped for a decade and what it says about our military power.

All it tells me is that despite all that power, you couldn't win the war. Do you think the US government views Vietnam as a success or an embarrassment?

That is false. The British were trying to take our land and create a neutral Indian zone.

Nothing about that in the link you posted... The War of 1812 was more a question of preserving American honour as the British didn't take them seriously yet. Anyways, the causes of the war are irrelevant, we were discussing how it ended in stalemate. The opening act of the war (which the Americans declared) was an invasion of Canada, not the defense of the United States.

When does the green disappear? I can't find it. Do you know why we sent a bunch of soldiers to fight the Korean War? It was because North Korea was trying to take over South Korea. We prevented it from happening. That was the point! Yeah, while we were there, we tried to push the border back as far as we could and didn't go all the way north, but our major objective, the one that had us there, was met.

I didn't say the Allies lost, I said that the war ended in stalemate. It's not like the Allies were solely (or even primarily) concerned with holding South Korea, both sides were in a position to take the whole peninsula several times but failed to do so. Neither side surrendered to the other and there were no large territorial changes, so it was a stalemate.

I know. All they had to do was preserve their presence until we left.

They didn't really have to preserve anything, most of the fighting took place in South Vietnam.

I know. This is getting very repetetive.

It's like a scenario where some little shit goes and sits in some other little shit's chair and a huge football player kid walks over and keeps telling the little shit to get out of the chair. As he tells him that over and over, he bloodies up the kid's nose, breaks both of his arms, gives him two black eyes, and knocks the air out of him. During that time, the football player's mother is nagging her ass off about how he needs to come home. Yet he keeps beating the little shit severely and telling him to get out of the chair and breaks his jaw and knocks seven of his teeth out. The mother's nagging is getting worse and worse the whole time, and then his father tells him he has no choice but to come home. The football player walks off and the little shit is still in the chair. Then the little shit writes his name on the chair. That is like what happened with North Vietnam. What you are saying about the war is like saying to the football player, "You lost that fight." It's a pretty semantic argument, and it would be a distraction in a debate about whether the kid could handle a certain other football player who tries to take over his chair.

I think the only reason you don't care about the results is because the territories lost didn't belong to you. Say Mexico invaded the US. Over the years Mexico loses 100 million men whereas the US only loses 100 thousand, but somehow, Mexico prevails and successfully annexes the United States. Would you call this a crushing Mexican loss for having lost so many men or a Mexican victory since the US DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. We can use a sports analogy too. Say you have the best team in the league, and you're playing the worst team in the league. During the game your team plays well but luck isn't on their side and they just can't seem to score. The other team ends up getting a few lucky goals and your team loses. What's more important, who had the best team or which team won?

No, we proved that we would fight a war for a decade even despite major political pressure. That sends a powerful message.

No you didn't, you proved that you wouldn't see a long war through to the end because of major political pressure.

We did not stop North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam, but we spanked their asses for a decade and showed the Soviet Union a style we can use in fighting a war.

After the US retreated from Vietnam, neighboring Laos and Cambodia also adopted Soviet-style governments. If anything, Vietnam increased Soviet global influence.

Don't be fooled, I'm not venting any personal disdain against the United States so much as fighting off historical revisionism. Is it so hard to admit even a single defeat? What's stopping you, national ego or long engrained Cold War propaganda.

Now that you know the point of Jarrhead's comment, let's get back to it.

It is completely relevant to the issue of whether the United States has enough military power to handle an invasion from China. That is where this conversation was supposed to be going.

The discussion was mostly about an American invasion of China. A Chinese invasion of the continental US would be impossible, China doesn't have the right kind of strategic assets to pull that off. Pretty much only the US is still capable of a large scale intercontinental invasion. I've already explained why I don't think the US could beat China in Asia in previous posts.

Originally Posted by jarrhead

Good god they were fast.. I'd estimate mach 3. There was a very significant delay between sight and sound.

Dem flying saucers must've been making a pretty loud sonic boom .

Haha no they were actually about as quiet as a commercial airliner way up in the sky. You know the ones that pass by from time to time?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

All it tells me is that despite all that power, you couldn't win the war. Do you think the US government views Vietnam as a success or an embarrassment?

It depends on which aspect you are talking about. I keep telling you that. You are so hung up on the word "lost" that you are not catching my detailed characterization of the outcome of the war. This is a semantic argument.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Nothing about that in the link you posted... The War of 1812 was more a question of preserving American honour as the British didn't take them seriously yet. Anyways, the causes of the war are irrelevant, we were discussing how it ended in stalemate. The opening act of the war (which the Americans declared) was an invasion of Canada, not the defense of the United States.

I posted the link for the quote. Do you deny that the forced creation of neutral Indian territory in Ohio was what the British were after? Some objectives were met, and some were not. That does not make the war a stalemate. The United States was ecstatic with the feeling of victory after that war. Why might that be?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I didn't say the Allies lost, I said that the war ended in stalemate. It's not like the Allies were solely (or even primarily) concerned with holding South Korea, both sides were in a position to take the whole peninsula several times but failed to do so. Neither side surrendered to the other and there were no large territorial changes, so it was a stalemate.

So, a "while we are at it" objective failed, and that makes the war outcome a stalemate? No. We met the enormous objective we went there to meet and did it through military force and coercion.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

They didn't really have to preserve anything, most of the fighting took place in South Vietnam.

Say what? It was South Vietnam they occupied and labeled theirs about two seconds after we left. What they did was all about staying there.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I think the only reason you don't care about the results is because the territories lost didn't belong to you. Say Mexico invaded the US. Over the years Mexico loses 100 million men whereas the US only loses 100 thousand, but somehow, Mexico prevails and successfully annexes the United States. Would you call this a crushing Mexican loss for having lost so many men or a Mexican victory since the US DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. We can use a sports analogy too. Say you have the best team in the league, and you're playing the worst team in the league. During the game your team plays well but luck isn't on their side and they just can't seem to score. The other team ends up getting a few lucky goals and your team loses. What's more important, who had the best team or which team won?

I don't care about the results? Where do you get that? I've talked about the results into the ground. Are you reading my posts, or just the first few words of each paragraph?

In the Mexican war scenario, I would say they got their asses whipped but somehow magically took over the United States. What a bizarre situation that would be.

As for the sports scenario, winning and losing are very clearly defined. In our debate, they are not. That is why I have characterized the different aspects of the war outcome repeatedly. I think that calling our outcome a loss is simplistic. Again, our mission was a failure, but to say we lost the war is like saying the football player in my analogy lost the fight. Would you say the football player in my analogy lost the fight? His mission failed, but he beat the other guy senseless. He only went home because his parents didn't agree with the morality of what he was doing. Are we on the same page at all here?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

No you didn't, you proved that you wouldn't see a long war through to the end because of major political pressure.

Please counter the argument I used instead of making the same assertion again. I already know your assertion. I countered it with an argument.

I'll try a different approach. Give me a list of Asian countries that got taken over by a communist country after 1975 (when we pulled out of Vietnam).

Originally Posted by Spartiate

After the US retreated from Vietnam, neighboring Laos and Cambodia also adopted Soviet-style governments. If anything, Vietnam increased Soviet global influence.

Yet the communist invasions resulting in takeover were over in Asia, permanently.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Don't be fooled, I'm not venting any personal disdain against the United States so much as fighting off historical revisionism. Is it so hard to admit even a single defeat? What's stopping you, national ego or long engrained Cold War propaganda.

I'm battling simple-minded labels. I am not basing my characterization of you merely on this conversation. You and I have had a very long list of debates here. I know how you feel about my country, and you are extremely determined to say we lost a war.

If you mean "failed objective", I agree with you, but I think you are using the wrong word. To lose a war is to be backed into a corner and forced into something. That was not the case with us in Vietnam. It was a highly unusual scenario. We left due to our own internal political pressure, not from having our arms twisted by the much weaker enemy. Our population widely believed that we never had any business going there in the first place. That was the problem. That is what makes it different from the World War I battle you mentioned and practically all other military withdrawals. We were not cornered into having to do something by an enemy. It was our own population that did not agree with the morality of what we were doing. Do you see the difference?

Did the football player in my analogy lose the fight?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The discussion was mostly about an American invasion of China. A Chinese invasion of the continental US would be impossible, China doesn't have the right kind of strategic assets to pull that off. Pretty much only the US is still capable of a large scale intercontinental invasion. I've already explained why I don't think the US could beat China in Asia in previous posts.

The conversation turned to an American invasion of China. I guess we agree on what would happen in both scenarios.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Dem flying saucers must've been making a pretty loud sonic boom .

Yes, sonic booms are loud.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It depends on which aspect you are talking about. I keep telling you that. You are so hung up on the word "lost" that you are not catching my detailed characterization of the outcome of the war. This is a semantic argument.

To me, the political outcome of a war supersedes the military outcome. Where the lines are redrawn, who gets to rule the contested land, in the end that's all that matters.

I posted the link for the quote. Do you deny that the forced creation of neutral Indian territory in Ohio was what the British were after? Some objectives were met, and some were not. That does not make the war a stalemate. The United States was ecstatic with the feeling of victory after that war. Why might that be?

I guess it depends which side of the border you went to school . The Brits viewed the Northwest Territory (as the area was called) as an area of aggressive American expansionism outside of the "traditional" American lands (of the 13 colonies) that would eventually threaten Canada. Since the area was mostly populated by natives that were opposed to the US, the Brits sided with them to stall American expansion. Anyways, this territory was not the US' primary objective, Canada was, and that's where the bulk of the fighting took place. As for that feeling of victory, it was propaganda. There's a similar feeling among English Canadians of having "repelled and beaten back the American invaders". Wiki has a good quote on this:

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw her self-perceived victory as an important foundation of her growing nationhood.

So, a "while we are at it" objective failed, and that makes the war outcome a stalemate? No. We met the enormous objective we went there to meet and did it through military force and coercion.

The Allies accomplished that objective within 6 months, so why did the war last another 2.5 years? The initial primary objective of reclaiming South Korea turned into gaining all of Korea. In a more legal sense, by the end of the war, neither side had surrendered to each other and neither side had the upper hand. Thus neither side either won or loss, which leaves only a stalemate.

Say what? It was South Vietnam they occupied and labeled theirs about two seconds after we left. What they did was all about staying there.

I don't think we're on the same page here. I just found that you made it seem that you believed that North Vietnam's objective was merely to defend itself (when you compared it to 1812 and Korea) and that they took the South after the US left. The reality is that they were always on the offensive and that all the ground fighting took place in South Vietnam, so the comparison wasn't really accurate. Anyways it's not that relevant to the rest of the discussion.

I don't care about the results? Where do you get that? I've talked about the results into the ground. Are you reading my posts, or just the first few words of each paragraph?

Well you've talked about military results, but you were ignoring the political outcome which I believe is more important.

In the Mexican war scenario, I would say they got their asses whipped but somehow magically took over the United States. What a bizarre situation that would be.

Yes it's not realistic, but saying that the US won because they clobbered Mexico is a bit short sighted considering that Mexico successfully annexed the US.

As for the sports scenario, winning and losing are very clearly defined. In our debate, they are not. That is why I have characterized the different aspects of the war outcome repeatedly. I think that calling our outcome a loss is simplistic. Again, our mission was a failure, but to say we lost the war is like saying the football player in my analogy lost the fight. Would you say the football player in my analogy lost the fight? His mission failed, but he beat the other guy senseless. He only went home because his parents didn't agree with the morality of what he was doing. Are we on the same page at all here?

The military aspect of war, while dominant, is not the sole factor contributing towards the outcome of a war. Wars can be won and lost through economics and through politics. You can't claim to have won a war while saying the mission was a failure, how's that supposed to work?

Please counter the argument I used instead of making the same assertion again. I already know your assertion. I countered it with an argument.

I'll try a different approach. Give me a list of Asian countries that got taken over by a communist country after 1975 (when we pulled out of Vietnam).

Korea and Vietnam were not really invasions of other sovereign countries, they were attempts to reunify a divided country under the same banner. It's not exactly the same as say, when Germany invaded the rest of Europe during WW2, Korea and Vietnam were borderline civil wars.

Yet the communist invasions resulting in takeover were over in Asia, permanently.

Very little military action took place during the Cold War. Most of the fighting was political. Like I said, after Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also adopted similar governments, so Soviet influence wasn't stopped. After Vietnam, over half the countries in East Asia were aligned with the Soviet Union.

I'm battling simple-minded labels. I am not basing my characterization of you merely on this conversation. You and I have had a very long list of debates here. I know how you feel about my country, and you are extremely determined to say we lost a war.

If you mean "failed objective", I agree with you, but I think you are using the wrong word. To lose a war is to be backed into a corner and forced into something. That was not the case with us in Vietnam. It was a highly unusual scenario. We left due to our own internal political pressure, not from having our arms twisted by the much weaker enemy. Our population widely believed that we never had any business going there in the first place. That was the problem. That is what makes it different from the World War I battle you mentioned and practically all other military withdrawals. We were not cornered into having to do something by an enemy. It was our own population that did not agree with the morality of what we were doing. Do you see the difference?

Did the football player in my analogy lose the fight?

Again, I think the only reason you can say that is because the territory lost was not yours. How do you think a South Vietnamese man in 1975 would react if an American said they did not lose in Vietnam? In the strictest sense, you could say that the US forfeited the war (which in every sense of the word usually entails a loss) or that the Vietnam war was "a string of tactical victories but a strategic failure". But to say that the US won in Vietnam or that the North Vietnamese lost is a ginourmous pile of Cold War propaganda.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

To me, the political outcome of a war supersedes the military outcome. Where the lines are redrawn, who gets to rule the contested land, in the end that's all that matters.

I don't think it's all that matters, considering the fact that a side may withdraw due to internal political pressure concerning ethics. That is how a failed objective can result despite a severe ass kicking.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I guess it depends which side of the border you went to school . The Brits viewed the Northwest Territory (as the area was called) as an area of aggressive American expansionism outside of the "traditional" American lands (of the 13 colonies) that would eventually threaten Canada. Since the area was mostly populated by natives that were opposed to the US, the Brits sided with them to stall American expansion. Anyways, this territory was not the US' primary objective, Canada was, and that's where the bulk of the fighting took place. As for that feeling of victory, it was propaganda. There's a similar feeling among English Canadians of having "repelled and beaten back the American invaders". Wiki has a good quote on this:

Our invasion of Canada took place mainly to draw the British into the North American mainland so we could fight them in a land war. We did that because they were not respecting our independence, as illustrated by the things I have mentioned. Britain has respected our independence ever since the end of the War of 1812. That is what it was about for us. Some historians say that our Revolutionary War ended with the War of 1812 for that reason.

Of course, gaining Canadian land would have been seen as a plus at the time, but it wasn't the real point.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The Allies accomplished that objective within 6 months, so why did the war last another 2.5 years? The initial primary objective of reclaiming South Korea turned into gaining all of Korea. In a more legal sense, by the end of the war, neither side had surrendered to each other and neither side had the upper hand. Thus neither side either won or loss, which leaves only a stalemate.

We were fighting to keep South Korea free after we got them there. The border change animation you posted shows that we kept having to defend the freedom. Pushing the border upward and trying to unify all of Korea was a preservation measure.

By the way, we never even declared war on North Korea. It was a police action, like our involvement in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't think we're on the same page here. I just found that you made it seem that you believed that North Vietnam's objective was merely to defend itself (when you compared it to 1812 and Korea) and that they took the South after the US left. The reality is that they were always on the offensive and that all the ground fighting took place in South Vietnam, so the comparison wasn't really accurate. Anyways it's not that relevant to the rest of the discussion.

Like I said, they were defending their position. They were in the same position when we left them as when we showed up. That is why it was a failed mission.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Well you've talked about military results, but you were ignoring the political outcome which I believe is more important.

If you think I have been ignoring the political outcome, you have not been reading my posts.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yes it's not realistic, but saying that the US won because they clobbered Mexico is a bit short sighted considering that Mexico successfully annexed the US.

We would have won the fight but lost the mission. There is the physical confrontation, and then there is the political outcome of it. Do you disagree?

You never told me... Did the football player kid in the analogy I used lose the fight? I am interested in your answer to that question. What is it?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The military aspect of war, while dominant, is not the sole factor contributing towards the outcome of a war. Wars can be won and lost through economics and through politics. You can't claim to have won a war while saying the mission was a failure, how's that supposed to work?

See my last point.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Korea and Vietnam were not really invasions of other sovereign countries, they were attempts to reunify a divided country under the same banner. It's not exactly the same as say, when Germany invaded the rest of Europe during WW2, Korea and Vietnam were borderline civil wars.

Then we weren't even fighting countries. I disagree, though. Those nations were clearly separate entities by the time we got involved in their wars.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

ToVery little military action took place during the Cold War. Most of the fighting was political. Like I said, after Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also adopted similar governments, so Soviet influence wasn't stopped. After Vietnam, over half the countries in East Asia were aligned with the Soviet Union.

But there were no more takeovers through invasion. Our part in the Vietnam War was not about persuading governments not to go communist. It was about deterring communist takeovers by outside nations.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Again, I think the only reason you can say that is because the territory lost was not yours. How do you think a South Vietnamese man in 1975 would react if an American said they did not lose in Vietnam? In the strictest sense, you could say that the US forfeited the war (which in every sense of the word usually entails a loss) or that the Vietnam war was "a string of tactical victories but a strategic failure". But to say that the US won in Vietnam or that the North Vietnamese lost is a ginourmous pile of Cold War propaganda.

They think we kicked ass but then turned around and became quitters because the left wouldn't stop chirping against our actions. The South Vietnamese to this day think we abondoned them, which is exactly what we did. They don't think we were cornered and coerced militarily. THAT would be a defeat. We just quit due to our own morals.

I also would not use simple terminology and say we won the Vietnam War. It wasn't a loss or a stalemate either. We just got fed up with kicking their asses. I don't think there is any one word label that can be legitimately put on that.

I still want to know your take on the analogy I used. Did the football player "lose" the fight? His mission was a failure because his dad said he had to go home for moral reasons, but he seriously fucked the other guy up. What single word applies to that?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think it's all that matters, considering the fact that a side may withdraw due to internal political pressure concerning ethics. That is how a failed objective can result despite a severe ass kicking.

Do you think it's possible to win a war while taking more casualties?

Of course, gaining Canadian land would have been seen as a plus at the time, but it wasn't the real point.

I disagree but we can just leave it at that.

We were fighting to keep South Korea free after we got them there. The border change animation you posted shows that we kept having to defend the freedom. Pushing the border upward and trying to unify all of Korea was a preservation measure.

By the way, we never even declared war on North Korea. It was a police action, like our involvement in Vietnam.

I'm not questioning motives, just that the Korean War was a stalemate.

Like I said, they were defending their position. They were in the same position when we left them as when we showed up. That is why it was a failed mission.

No, at the beginning of the war, North and South Vietnam were two different factions. The North invaded the South during the course of the war and by the end, the North had complete control over all of Vietnam. There was also a strong insurgency in the South that was active the whole time (the Viet Cong). So pretty much during the entire war (except in the air), the US/South Vietnam were on the defensive.

If you think I have been ignoring the political outcome, you have not been reading my posts.

Well you seem to be more concerned with who lost more men than who gets to rule the piece of land.

We would have won the fight but lost the mission. There is the physical confrontation, and then there is the political outcome of it. Do you disagree?

Yes. Winning battles isn't just about killing people, it's about taking ground (or at least defending).

You never told me... Did the football player kid in the analogy I used lose the fight? I am interested in your answer to that question. What is it?

I'd say the fight was incomplete. Also, in the analogy, the mother has no interest in the fight, but in real life, the mother (the US government) sent the football player (the military) to fuck up the little guy. So the correct analogy would be more like the mother sent the football player to beat up the little guy, but called him back when no progress was made.

Then we weren't even fighting countries. I disagree, though. Those nations were clearly separate entities by the time we got involved in their wars.

But there were no more takeovers through invasion. Our part in the Vietnam War was not about persuading governments not to go communist. It was about deterring communist takeovers by outside nations.

As I have said, Vietnam was a special situation where the cause of the war was to unite a divided country under the same banner. After WW2, only three countries were divided like this in Asia: China, Korea and Vietnam. All three had wars, Vietnam being the last. So after the Vietnam war, there were no countries left in this special situation. If there were, I'm pretty sure they would've suffered the same fate.

They think we kicked ass but then turned around and became quitters because the left wouldn't stop chirping against our actions. The South Vietnamese to this day think we abondoned them, which is exactly what we did. They don't think we were cornered and coerced militarily. THAT would be a defeat. We just quit due to our own morals.

So they probably think that the North won...

I also would not use simple terminology and say we won the Vietnam War. It wasn't a loss or a stalemate either. We just got fed up with kicking their asses. I don't think there is any one word label that can be legitimately put on that.

Honestly I'm not sure the US could have made much of a difference had they stayed. They were there for over a decade with a LOT of men (over half a million) and got almost no results. Also who's to say the North wasn't playing on the hearts of the American people back home by prolonging the war? Surely they knew about the unrest it caused, it could've been a key strategy for them wear off public support for the US until they withdrew. Unconventional measures are necessary when facing a stronger enemy.

On a sidenote, do you know about the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 80s? Would you qualify that as a win/loss/other?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Do you think it's possible to win a war while taking more casualties?

Yes, if it happens through military coercion.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm not questioning motives, just that the Korean War was a stalemate.

The motives are relevant. They were measures taken to preserve our war objective, which had been met.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

No, at the beginning of the war, North and South Vietnam were two different factions. The North invaded the South during the course of the war and by the end, the North had complete control over all of Vietnam. There was also a strong insurgency in the South that was active the whole time (the Viet Cong). So pretty much during the entire war (except in the air), the US/South Vietnam were on the defensive.

The North Vietnamese were invading South Vietnam for years before the war started. We sent representatives to the region very early, but we did not send combat troops in until 1965, which was many years after the invasion started. Also, when North Vietnam took over South Vietnam, we were out of the war. So, we were not at war with North Vietnam during the initial invasions or during the take over.

Of course we were on the defensive. We went there to defend. That was the point. Our goal was not to take over North Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Well you seem to be more concerned with who lost more men than who gets to rule the piece of land.

The picture I have been illustrating is much bigger than that.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Yes. Winning battles isn't just about killing people, it's about taking ground (or at least defending).

... through coercion.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'd say the fight was incomplete. Also, in the analogy, the mother has no interest in the fight, but in real life, the mother (the US government) sent the football player (the military) to fuck up the little guy. So the correct analogy would be more like the mother sent the football player to beat up the little guy, but called him back when no progress was made.

If the fight was incomplete, then our fight against North Vietnam was incomplete. It's the same kind of situation.

In the analogy, the mother represents the American public and the father represents the government. The father had a change of mind after the mother bitched so much about what was being done to the kid who was getting his ass whipped in the chair.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

As I have said, Vietnam was a special situation where the cause of the war was to unite a divided country under the same banner. After WW2, only three countries were divided like this in Asia: China, Korea and Vietnam. All three had wars, Vietnam being the last. So after the Vietnam war, there were no countries left in this special situation. If there were, I'm pretty sure they would've suffered the same fate.

North Vietnam and South Vietnam were two different countries, and the point was not to unite them. It was to keep one of them from being taken over by the other one, which was an outside nation. No more communist nations in Asia took over other nations after the Vietnam War. We gave them a damn good reason not to. That was the bigger point. The even bigger point than that was to scare the Soviet Union out of playing that game. They played more games a while later, but we chased them off pretty easily... because of what we did in the Vietnam War. Then we won the Cold War. That was our biggest international policy object for almost half a century. We pulled it off, and our activity in the Vietnam War played a major role in that victory.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So they probably think that the North won...

Against South Vietnam, yes. North Vietnam did defeat South Vietnam through military coercion. We weren't there when that happened. Our hippies wouldn't stand for such violence against another nation.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Honestly I'm not sure the US could have made much of a difference had they stayed. They were there for over a decade with a LOT of men (over half a million) and got almost no results. Also who's to say the North wasn't playing on the hearts of the American people back home by prolonging the war? Surely they knew about the unrest it caused, it could've been a key strategy for them wear off public support for the US until they withdrew. Unconventional measures are necessary when facing a stronger enemy.

Our public was not screaming, "Oh, they're kicking our asses! Call it off!" They were screaming, "How dare you do that to them! And getting Americans killed in the process... Their situation is none of our business! Leave them alone!" Getting a nation's public to feel sorry for you and stop spanking your ass would be a political victory, but not a form of military coercion. We are only talking about a what if any way.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

On a sidenote, do you know about the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 80s? Would you qualify that as a win/loss/other?

The Afghanis won because we supplied them with weapons and training to coerce the Soviets out of their country. The Soviets also knew who was behind the curtains and what we were willing to go through because of the Vietnam War, as well as what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So yes, that was a military victory for Afghanistan.

By the way, the Taliban and the group that evolved into Al Qaeda (Usama Bin Laden included) were some of the key organizations we helped save Afghanistan from the Soviets. Look at how they repay us. And Bin Laden said Americans are rude.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Afghanis won because we supplied them with weapons and training to coerce the Soviets out of their country. The Soviets also knew who was behind the curtains and what we were willing to go through because of the Vietnam War, as well as what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So yes, that was a military victory for Afghanistan.

By the way, the Taliban and the group that evolved into Al Qaeda (Usama Bin Laden included) were some of the key organizations we helped save Afghanistan from the Soviets. Look at how they repay us. And Bin Laden said Americans are rude.

The Soviets also equipped and trained the North Vietnamese... Soviet troops initially entered Afghanistan at the behest of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the legitimate government that was in a civil war against the Mujahideen. The Soviets ended up occupying the whole country and the war turned into an insurgency. The Soviets eventually withdrew due to internal pressure.

The Soviets had suffered around 15 000 casualties in 10 years and the Mujahideen suffered over 500 000. So why would this be a loss for the Soviets but not for the US in Vietnam? Me thinks bias...

Also the US knew full well who they were getting in bed with. The Mujahideen/Taliban were always extremists, but the US would rather have Afghanistan in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists than the Soviets. I even recall a quote from a CIA agent working with the Mujahideen saying that Americans had more in common with Soviets.

Oh, tell me about the "internal pressure". Did they have a Haight-Ashbury scene or a Woodstock? Did tens of thousands crowd around the Kremlin because they thought the Soviet effort was immoral? No, the Soviet government would have killed every last one of them for pulling that kind of stuff. There was no internal pressure from the Soviet public. The public didn't matter. The Soviet government was terrified of who was helping the resistance.

Our part of the Cold War was a fight to stop the Soviet Union from taking over the world. I know we sided with some rotten scum over the Soviets, but the Cold War was the second most important war of all time. The Soviet Union absolutely had to be defeated.

By the way, the Soviets didn't just equip and train the North Vietnamese. They sent 3,000 troops to fight for them. Our response scared the bejesus out of the Soviets.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, tell me about the "internal pressure". Did they have a Haight-Ashbury scene or a Woodstock? Did tens of thousands crowd around the Kremlin because they thought the Soviet effort was immoral? No, the Soviet government would have killed every last one of them for pulling that kind of stuff. There was no internal pressure from the Soviet public. The public didn't matter. The Soviet government was terrified of who was helping the resistance.

A lot of the pressure came from within the government and the military who were seeing a lowering of troop morale and no results. Also in the late 80s under Gorbachev, a lot of freedoms were given to the Soviet public (including free speech and freedom of assembly) and the public voiced their opinions against the war in Afghanistan. The Soviets were there for 10 years and killed over half a million of the enemy, what did they have to be afraid about?

Our part of the Cold War was a fight to stop the Soviet Union from taking over the world. I know we sided with some rotten scum over the Soviets, but the Cold War was the second most important war of all time. The Soviet Union absolutely had to be defeated.

Cold War propaganda. From the Soviets' perspective, it was the Americans who were taking over the world.

By the way, the Soviets didn't just equip and train the North Vietnamese. They sent 3,000 troops to fight for them. Our response scared the bejesus out of the Soviets.

Do you speak for Soviet generals now?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

A lot of the pressure came from within the government and the military who were seeing a lowering of troop morale and no results. Also in the late 80s under Gorbachev, a lot of freedoms were given to the Soviet public (including free speech and freedom of assembly) and the public voiced their opinions against the war in Afghanistan. The Soviets were there for 10 years and killed over half a million of the enemy, what did they have to be afraid about?

I already told you. The United States and what we might end up doing.

I'm sure the Soviet government really gave a shit what the public thought. Gorbachev did make positive reforms, but the Soviet government was never one over which the people had ultimate authority.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Cold War propaganda. From the Soviets' perspective, it was the Americans who were taking over the world.

Communist propaganda. You can't take over the world with democracy, but you can with totalitarianism. I'm sure you're really terrified that we are going to take over Canada.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Do you speak for Soviet generals now?

No, just about them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I already told you. The United States and what we might end up doing.

I'm sure the Soviet government really gave a shit what the public thought. Gorbachev did make positive reforms, but the Soviet government was never one over which the people had ultimate authority.

Gorbachev did care about his people, he even allowed multi-party elections, so your statement isn't exactly true. There were some Stalinist geezers in the communist party that opposed him (which led to the fall of the Soviet Union), but they weren't in a position to deny the freedoms that Gorbachev installed. In any case, the sense of embarrassment that the government had over the war was enough for them to pull out regardless of what the people thought.

Communist propaganda. You can't take over the world with democracy, but you can with totalitarianism. I'm sure you're really terrified that we are going to take over Canada.

The US has over 700 military bases around the globe spread out on each continent, so you tell me who's been taking over the world. How many countries did the Soviet Union invade after WW2 anyways? Do you know how many legitimate governments the US has toppled for political or even economical reasons? Hell the US even had the freely elected president of Guatemala deposed because his land reforms threatened areas that were set aside for an American fruit company to grow bananas. Lets not forget good ol' "Manifest Destiny", whatever that bullcrap is...

Sometimes you mention my anti-American sentiments, well this is a huge reason for them. The US condemns things that it does itself, that's called hypocrisy. At least the Soviet Union was unapologetic about its shady practises. Cold War America on the other hand is the land freedom, unless you're black or a woman or in the way of a rich guy... The US doesn't like it when other countries have nukes, even though it invented them and is the only country to have used them in anger. It gets furious when the Soviets put some nukes in Cuba, even though American nukes were deployed in Europe and Turkey a few years earlier. The US will meddle with the internal affairs of sovereign nations (including mine) to serve its own agenda, it is not out to "protect our freedom".

No, just about them.

I can't see how the US' involvement in Vietnam could've scared the Soviets. They were probably enjoying every minute of their adversary being tangled up in military and political mess. Did the Soviet War in Afghanistan scare you guys?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Gorbachev did care about his people, he even allowed multi-party elections, so your statement isn't exactly true. There were some Stalinist geezers in the communist party that opposed him (which led to the fall of the Soviet Union), but they weren't in a position to deny the freedoms that Gorbachev installed. In any case, the sense of embarrassment that the government had over the war was enough for them to pull out regardless of what the people thought.

Why would they be embarrassed? They were kicking ass, and they were quite imperialistic and sociopathic. Only our involvement could have pushed them out of that war.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The US has over 700 military bases around the globe spread out on each continent, so you tell me who's been taking over the world. How many countries did the Soviet Union invade after WW2 anyways? Do you know how many legitimate governments the US has toppled for political or even economical reasons? Hell the US even had the freely elected president of Guatemala deposed because his land reforms threatened areas that were set aside for an American fruit company to grow bananas. Lets not forget good ol' "Manifest Destiny", whatever that bullcrap is...

Sometimes you mention my anti-American sentiments, well this is a huge reason for them. The US condemns things that it does itself, that's called hypocrisy. At least the Soviet Union was unapologetic about its shady practises. Cold War America on the other hand is the land freedom, unless you're black or a woman or in the way of a rich guy... The US doesn't like it when other countries have nukes, even though it invented them and is the only country to have used them in anger. It gets furious when the Soviets put some nukes in Cuba, even though American nukes were deployed in Europe and Turkey a few years earlier. The US will meddle with the internal affairs of sovereign nations (including mine) to serve its own agenda, it is not out to "protect our freedom".

Those actions you mentioned in the first paragraph were Cold War actions against Soviet allies. The Soviet Union was trying to impose totalitarianism on the world, which is very different from government that people have the ultimate authority over. I know you understand the difference.

Our military bases all over the world are there to protect the world against totalitarianism. We are the most equipped country to protect the world from it. You should be thankful that we do. If the Soviet Union had bordered Canada and the United States did not exist, guess what would have happened to Canada. Your life would be very controlled now. It would be a nightmare.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I can't see how the US' involvement in Vietnam could've scared the Soviets. They were probably enjoying every minute of their adversary being tangled up in military and political mess.

We killed about two million people!!!!

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Did the Soviet War in Afghanistan scare you guys?

Fuck yeah it did.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would they be embarrassed? They were kicking ass, and they were quite imperialistic and sociopathic. Only our involvement could have pushed them out of that war.

What made them any more imperialistic or sociopathic than the US in Vietnam? And they were embarrassed from a lack of results despite military superiority. After 10 years, the war had become a huge economical drain and the people, with their newfound voice, were expressing their dissatisfaction.

Those actions you mentioned in the first paragraph were Cold War actions against Soviet allies. The Soviet Union was trying to impose totalitarianism on the world, which is very different from government that people have the ultimate authority over. I know you understand the difference.

So is every leftist government that the US overthrew a totalitarian Soviet puppet state? Lets use the Guatemala example for one...

In the early 50s, the president of Guatemala, who was democratically elected, was making socialist land reforms that would redistribute unused land to local peasants for agriculture. Some of that land had been set aside by previous, somewhat corrupt governments for the use of the United Fruit Company (based in the US obviously). United Fruit, which was huge at the time, was unsatisfied with the compensation from the Guatemalan government for the expropriation of the land, and lobbied the US government for action. The CIA then hatched a plan that involved supporting an exiled Guatemalan army officer in a military takeover, as well as several assassinations of government officials. By the way, Allen Dulles, the CIA director at the time, was a large shareholder of the United Fruit Company... The coup was successful and the elected government was replaced by a military junta. After this, the CIA launched Operation PBHISTORY which was supposed to find links between the Guatemalan communists and the Soviet Union. They found none.

So the end result was that the US replaced a freely elected and benevolent socialist government with a military dictatorship. The Soviets had nothing to do with Guatemala, the Americans turned it into a puppet state in the name of bananas. This is what your country did during the Cold War. It was not out to look for the world's freedom or thwart totalitarianism, it was looking after its own interests and it fucked up a lot of good people while doing so. The US backed up a lot of horrible, totalitarian dictators during the Cold War; Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, and many others.

Our military bases all over the world are there to protect the world against totalitarianism. We are the most equipped country to protect the world from it. You should be thankful that we do. If the Soviet Union had bordered Canada and the United States did not exist, guess what would have happened to Canada. Your life would be very controlled now. It would be a nightmare.

To protect the world or to protect US interests around the world? The US uses it's economic power and massive military network to force smaller countries to "fall in line" with it, which often disadvantages the locals. The USSR post-Stalin was not the expansionist invader you make it out to be. There were neutral countries in Europe that bordered the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc that fared just well without having to be babied by the US. After the end of WW2, Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world and was designing more advanced aircraft than the US. We could've taken care of ourselves but as the Cold War progressed, the US constantly lobbied us to buy their equipment. As a result, our domestic defense industry died off and we started buying second hand trash from the US, we also became increasingly dependent on your forces to defend us.

We killed about two million people!!!!

For the record, it was closer to a million (combatants that is). And they were peasants who lived in straw huts. The USSR also lost over 10 million soldiers during WW2, more than any other country. They weren't really afraid of heavy casualties.

Fuck yeah it did.

You're afraid when you see your enemy lose?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

What made them any more imperialistic or sociopathic than the US in Vietnam? And they were embarrassed from a lack of results despite military superiority. After 10 years, the war had become a huge economical drain and the people, with their newfound voice, were expressing their dissatisfaction.

There is a major distinction that you seem to keep missing. It is the difference between fighting for freedom and fighting against it. You have freedom, and I think you take it for granted. It is not a worldwide reality, and no part of the world has ever always had it throughout the existence of humanity. It has disappeared in a hurry in many nations, such as Spain, Italy, Germany (and every country Hitler took over), and Russia. Don't think for a second it could never happen to the U.S. or Canada. It very well could.

Think about what it would be like to live in the Soviet Union. You seem to know a lot about history, so visualize life in the Soviet Union. Then look at your life now. The country that borders you to the south has gone through nightmares you will never even imagine to protect that freedom. Call that cliche or patriotic if you like, but what you cannot honestly do is say that it is false. I know we had to do some fucked up stuff during the Cold War, but the big goal was to stop totalitarians from taking over the world. Do you sort of understand the concern?

Think really hard about the important difference. It is the answer to a lot of your questions.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So is every leftist government that the US overthrew a totalitarian Soviet puppet state? Lets use the Guatemala example for one...

In the early 50s, the president of Guatemala, who was democratically elected, was making socialist land reforms that would redistribute unused land to local peasants for agriculture. Some of that land had been set aside by previous, somewhat corrupt governments for the use of the United Fruit Company (based in the US obviously). United Fruit, which was huge at the time, was unsatisfied with the compensation from the Guatemalan government for the expropriation of the land, and lobbied the US government for action. The CIA then hatched a plan that involved supporting an exiled Guatemalan army officer in a military takeover, as well as several assassinations of government officials. By the way, Allen Dulles, the CIA director at the time, was a large shareholder of the United Fruit Company... The coup was successful and the elected government was replaced by a military junta. After this, the CIA launched Operation PBHISTORY which was supposed to find links between the Guatemalan communists and the Soviet Union. They found none.

So the end result was that the US replaced a freely elected and benevolent socialist government with a military dictatorship. The Soviets had nothing to do with Guatemala, the Americans turned it into a puppet state in the name of bananas. This is what your country did during the Cold War. It was not out to look for the world's freedom or thwart totalitarianism, it was looking after its own interests and it fucked up a lot of good people while doing so. The US backed up a lot of horrible, totalitarian dictators during the Cold War; Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, and many others.

Now tell me the U.S. rationale for those actions.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

To protect the world or to protect US interests around the world? The US uses it's economic power and massive military network to force smaller countries to "fall in line" with it, which often disadvantages the locals. The USSR post-Stalin was not the expansionist invader you make it out to be. There were neutral countries in Europe that bordered the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc that fared just well without having to be babied by the US. After the end of WW2, Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world and was designing more advanced aircraft than the US. We could've taken care of ourselves but as the Cold War progressed, the US constantly lobbied us to buy their equipment. As a result, our domestic defense industry died off and we started buying second hand trash from the US, we also became increasingly dependent on your forces to defend us.

The Eastern Bloc nations were Hell holes, and they were our enemies because they were all part of the Soviet Empire (though not all on the same levels of membership). The Soviet Union was quite expansionist until Gorbachev changed things a good bit. They had 3,000 troops fighting for North Vietnam. How do you explain that one? They also tried to take over Afghanistan. The philosophy from their inception all the way until near the very end was that Communism had to spread.

I'm sorry about your weapon deals. I'm sure our weapons were so inferior and you had no choice but to buy them.

The difference between East Berlin and West Berlin in terms of economics and freedom was enormous. We were not going to let the Soviet Union turn the entire fucking world into East Berlin. Do you at all see where we were coming from on that?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

For the record, it was closer to a million (combatants that is). And they were peasants who lived in straw huts. The USSR also lost over 10 million soldiers during WW2, more than any other country. They weren't really afraid of heavy casualties.

The estimates are 1 to 3 million because there is really no way to be sure, just like with Saddam Hussein's mass graves.

Yes, economic weakness had a lot to do with the Soviet withdrawal from Afhanistan. Socialism, especially communism (Yes, communism is a form of socialism. Start a thread on it if you want to debate it.) is a pathetic economic system that creates situations like the extremely profound and obvious difference between East Berlin and West Berlin. That is the ultimate display of how much socialism sucks. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was still a matter of military coercion.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You're afraid when you see your enemy lose?

The Soviet Union taking over a country was a severely serious situation. They were acting out exactly what we knew about them, and we knew they had plans way beyond Afghanistan. We also knew that they had nukes to possibly pull out if they got frustrated enough, which could perpetuate the end of life on Earth. Yes, it was a very scary situation.

Thought for the day:



That was the Berlin Wall. It no longer exists. We won the Cold War. This is serious shit.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is a major distinction that you seem to keep missing. It is the difference between fighting for freedom and fighting against it. You have freedom, and I think you take it for granted. It is not a worldwide reality, and no part of the world has ever always had it throughout the existence of humanity. It has disappeared in a hurry in many nations, such as Spain, Italy, Germany (and every country Hitler took over), and Russia. Don't think for a second it could never happen to the U.S. or Canada. It very well could.

Think about what it would be like to live in the Soviet Union. You seem to know a lot about history, so visualize life in the Soviet Union. Then look at your life now. The country that borders you to the south has gone through nightmares you will never even imagine to protect that freedom. Call that cliche or patriotic if you like, but what you cannot honestly do is say that it is false. I know we had to do some fucked up stuff during the Cold War, but the big goal was to stop totalitarians from taking over the world. Do you sort of understand the concern?

Think really hard about the important difference. It is the answer to a lot of your questions.

The US was first and foremost concerned with its own "freedom" and protection when acting abroad. Its actions were not meant to "liberate" struggling countries but to create a ring of friendly client states worldwide that would not oppose or threaten US interests. If it could do so peacefully while instituting a democracy and the ideals of Western civilization then that was a bonus, but it was not above backing murderous dictators that were every bit as horrible as their Soviet counterparts would have been, so long as they supported the US and bought their military equipment. I have pointed out examples of how the US has itself robbed the freedom of other countries and supported totalitarian juntas. To you it may seem that a pro-american dictator is favourable to a potential non-cooperative dictator, but from a third party's perspective (such as myself) it's just as bad.

It is a triumph of the American propaganda machine that your countrymen have such a favourable view of US actions abroad; international views are not so positive.

Now tell me the U.S. rationale for those actions.

The obvious would point to heavy lobbying from large corporations who stood to lose a lot as well as government officials with underlying conflicts of interest. The intervention was masked under the guise of thwarting a Soviet beachhead in the Americas, even though Guatemala was not hostile and there was no evidence of Soviet involvement.

Now even if the US' true intentions were genuinely to prevent Soviet influence in Central America, what on Earth gives the US the right to REPLACE a foreign government just because it is socialist. Not every person in the world supports the American way of life. The American policy is "anything but communism", they'd prefer a capitalist dictator be in charge because it benefits THEM, not the locals. If you think the US is justified in replacing legitimate governments with totalitarianism just to avoid the potential for another form of totalitarianism, then you are no better than the Soviets.

The Eastern Bloc nations were Hell holes, and they were our enemies because they were all part of the Soviet Empire (though not all on the same levels of membership). The Soviet Union was quite expansionist until Gorbachev changed things a good bit. They had 3,000 troops fighting for North Vietnam. How do you explain that one? They also tried to take over Afghanistan. The philosophy from their inception all the way until near the very end was that Communism had to spread.

The Eastern Bloc was no more a hell hole than some dictatorships that the US was backing in the Americas and Asia. And you can't really call the USSR expansionist after Stalin since they in fact didn't expand at all. The troops in Vietnam were to support their ally and man complex soviet military equipment. Afghanistan appears to be an exception at first, but consider that the Afghan government was originally supportive of the USSR and REQUESTED their aid against the Mujahideen. Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, those are expansionist nations and they operated in a very different way than the Soviet Union. The USSR wanted to spread communism politically, not militarily.

I'm sorry about your weapon deals. I'm sure our weapons were so inferior and you had no choice but to buy them.

The US purposefully "dumbs down" any military equipment it exports so that it will be inferior to its own. Of course, some of the blame lies with weak politicians on our part, but mostly I'm just proud of my country's heritage and accomplishments in aerospace and under fields, and I'm sad to have seen them die off in favour of reliance on American products.

Yes, economic weakness had a lot to do with the Soviet withdrawal from Afhanistan. Socialism, especially communism (Yes, communism is a form of socialism. Start a thread on it if you want to debate it.) is a pathetic economic system that creates situations like the extremely profound and obvious difference between East Berlin and West Berlin. That is the ultimate display of how much socialism sucks. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was still a matter of military coercion.

Socialism did turn a nation of peasants and farmers into the 2nd largest economy in the world. The Soviet Union was a very imperfect socialist model at that. They went bankrupt trying to compete toe-to-toe with a country that had a 150 year head start. The US' debt in 1990 was 56% of its GDP and has been growing ever since. Capitalism simply hides its flaws better.

How were the Soviets defeated militarily during the conflict?

The Soviet Union taking over a country was a severely serious situation. They were acting out exactly what we knew about them, and we knew they had plans way beyond Afghanistan. We also knew that they had nukes to possibly pull out if they got frustrated enough, which could perpetuate the end of life on Earth. Yes, it was a very scary situation.

Thought for the day:



That was the Berlin Wall. It no longer exists. We won the Cold War. This is serious shit.

I think your view of the Soviet Union/socialism would be way different had the USSR survived passed the Gorbachev days the way it should've all those years. Gorbachev effectively liberalized the country returning all the freedoms you believe are inherently non-existent in socialism. What would be left to complain about in a peaceful Soviet Union with all the normal human rights?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The US was first and foremost concerned with its own "freedom" and protection when acting abroad. Its actions were not meant to "liberate" struggling countries but to create a ring of friendly client states worldwide that would not oppose or threaten US interests. If it could do so peacefully while instituting a democracy and the ideals of Western civilization then that was a bonus, but it was not above backing murderous dictators that were every bit as horrible as their Soviet counterparts would have been, so long as they supported the US and bought their military equipment. I have pointed out examples of how the US has itself robbed the freedom of other countries and supported totalitarian juntas. To you it may seem that a pro-american dictator is favourable to a potential non-cooperative dictator, but from a third party's perspective (such as myself) it's just as bad.

It is a triumph of the American propaganda machine that your countrymen have such a favourable view of US actions abroad; international views are not so positive.

Ungrateful international views can jump off a fucking cliff. They don't prove anything except lack of gratitude, which is most prevalent in France of all countries. They know about the D-Day Invasion and what my country went through to liberate Western Europe in the lifetimes of many people who are still alive, and look at the pathetic attitudes that are so prevalent there any way. You aren't going to persuade me anywhere by pointing out those assholes. The "propaganda" claim doesn't mean anything to me either, considering that what I am telling you are actual facts.

I have said nothing about liberating all countries for their good. The picture is so much bigger than that. What I am saying to you is that we were fighting the second most crucial war in the history of the world. The spread of communism was a very serious and real threat. Communism was practically a religion, it was highly oppressive, and it was a threat to freedom everywhere. That is factual.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The obvious would point to heavy lobbying from large corporations who stood to lose a lot as well as government officials with underlying conflicts of interest. The intervention was masked under the guise of thwarting a Soviet beachhead in the Americas, even though Guatemala was not hostile and there was no evidence of Soviet involvement.

Now even if the US' true intentions were genuinely to prevent Soviet influence in Central America, what on Earth gives the US the right to REPLACE a foreign government just because it is socialist. Not every person in the world supports the American way of life. The American policy is "anything but communism", they'd prefer a capitalist dictator be in charge because it benefits THEM, not the locals. If you think the US is justified in replacing legitimate governments with totalitarianism just to avoid the potential for another form of totalitarianism, then you are no better than the Soviets.

You can compare life in my country to the Soviet Union and notice the obvious. You are missing the point that it was not just an economic system we were opposing. It was totalitarianism! Do you understand the seriousness of that? You act as though you could have lived in East Germany, Yugoslavia, or downtown Moscow and had just a good ole free time. You are not swallowing what kinds of governments they had. They could tell you what you may read and may not read, where you had to work, what you were not allowed to say, whom you were not allowed to disagree with, what time you had to be indoors, etc. etc. It was totalitarianism that caused such an alarm. We were very opposed to socialism, but it was the threat to freedoms far beyond economic freedom that had us involved in a terrible international conflict for almost half a century.

The South American and Central American governments we went after were not merely socialist. They were heavily involved with the Soviet Union in ways our CIA deemed threatening to the world. We were playing an ugly game of chess that had to be won, just like we were in World War II. Are you going to claim that we didn't care about human rights or freedom because we bombed civilian areas in World War II? If you do, you will be missing the much bigger picture. Hitler had to be stopped! The bigger picture is always bigger than the smaller picture. (You keep harping on the smaller pictures, and that is fallacious.) Similarly, the Soviet Union had to be stopped! I still think you majorly take freedom for granted and, despite your vast knowledge of history, have not swallowed the horrific nature of totalitarianism. Try to have a dream about life in East Berlin tonight.

Socialism is a major infringement on freedom, property, and civil rights, but as I said, the Soviet Union was much more terrible than just that. They had to be taken out of power. You are extremely fortunate that they were. Maybe some day you will come to terms with that insane reality.

Even if some people benefitted financially off our excursions in Latin America, it does not prove that it was the sole goal of the U.S. government. How much stock do you really put into circumstantial evidence? People can do corrupt shit and financially benefit off necessary actions. If U.S. soldiers stole diamonds from France while we were saving their asses, would it prove that our activities there were all about diamonds? Seriously, would it?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The Eastern Bloc was no more a hell hole than some dictatorships that the US was backing in the Americas and Asia. And you can't really call the USSR expansionist after Stalin since they in fact didn't expand at all. The troops in Vietnam were to support their ally and man complex soviet military equipment. Afghanistan appears to be an exception at first, but consider that the Afghan government was originally supportive of the USSR and REQUESTED their aid against the Mujahideen. Ancient Rome, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, those are expansionist nations and they operated in a very different way than the Soviet Union. The USSR wanted to spread communism politically, not militarily.

We do business with and ally, when we have to, with bad goverments sometimes. It's in the spirit of the bigger picture. Were those Asian countries threats to world freedom? Well, the Eastern Bloc, which had the Soviet Union as its mother empire in the larger empire, was an enormous threat to world freedom. Are you getting a sense of the seriousness of the situation yet?

North Vietnam was a puppet and partner in expansionism of the Soviet Union, and they expanded. The Soviet Union tried to take over Afghanistan, set up missiles in Cuba, form partnerships in Latin America (and did), etc. They were trying to expand. Plenty of our intelligence, on top of history and common sense, showed that. Communist expansion was the philosophy of the communist empire from its inception. It was Vladimire Lenin's life, and he was the father of the Soviet Union. Communist Expansion was what they were all about.

By the way, do you know what suddenly happened when Stalin was in power? The Cold War began. Suddenly, the United States was playing grand level chess with them and telling them to keep their asses in line, and we were doing everything we knew to do to keep them from reaching their dream of totalitarian world domination. That is why stuff slowed down so much from Stalin's reign until the end of the empire. We made that happen! I know you don't like our tactics, but they fucking worked! And they absolutely had to!

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The US purposefully "dumbs down" any military equipment it exports so that it will be inferior to its own. Of course, some of the blame lies with weak politicians on our part, but mostly I'm just proud of my country's heritage and accomplishments in aerospace and under fields, and I'm sad to have seen them die off in favour of reliance on American products.

We didn't force any business on Canada. We're not the Soviet Union. I don't know how good the military equipment we sold you was, but you didn't have to buy it. It was free trade. You don't need a military any way. You have us. That is why you feel so safe.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Socialism did turn a nation of peasants and farmers into the 2nd largest economy in the world. The Soviet Union was a very imperfect socialist model at that. They went bankrupt trying to compete toe-to-toe with a country that had a 150 year head start. The US' debt in 1990 was 56% of its GDP and has been growing ever since. Capitalism simply hides its flaws better.

Stalin scared the bejesus out of people and did get some things done that way (He is the second biggest mass murderer in history. Mao Zedong of Communist China is in first place. Hitler is third.), but poverty was still horrific because the government kept such a large percentage of what the people produced under coercion. The people's economy was shit. Ridiculous numbers of people lived in houses together all over the empire because they didn't have much money at all. Keeping all of that money, the government still collapsed. We didn't! You make it sound like we are just as backward as the Soviet Empire / Eastern Bloc, which is far from the truth. The Eastern Bloc was a backward ass, severely oppressive, military infested nightmare. We were not. You cannot honestly deny that.

By the way, the Soviet government kept so much of the people's money because... they could, for one thing, and because they had to spend so much money on keeping the people too scared to breathe the wrong way and keeping the United States out of their way as they tried to take over the world. Communism depends on such tactics to stay afloat. There could never possibly be a communist happy land of love and joy. It is impossible. People tend to get pissed and speak out against governments that rob them too much. That has to be squashed for communism to survive. Such squashing is pretty damn expensive.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

How were the Soviets defeated militarily during the conflict?

Their puny ass piggy bank was pushed to too low of a level for them to continue because the Afghans (helped MAJORLY by the U.S.) put up such a fight. The Soviets had no choice but to call of their fight.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I think your view of the Soviet Union/socialism would be way different had the USSR survived passed the Gorbachev days the way it should've all those years. Gorbachev effectively liberalized the country returning all the freedoms you believe are inherently non-existent in socialism. What would be left to complain about in a peaceful Soviet Union with all the normal human rights?

That is a pretty enormous "what if". We were not going to roll dice with such a hypothetical. Gorbachev did do some good things for the Soviet Union and the rest of the Eastern Bloc, but I think fear of assassination kept him from trying to go all that far in a capitalist direction. He eventually allowed some businesses to practice free enterprise, and he definitely improved relations with us. However, the end result of where he was going was a government that we would not have feared or opposed. When a country is free enough, we no longer fear that they are a threat to world freedom. Totalitarianism is what we see as a threat to world freedom.

By the way, how do you feel about totalitarianism, such as what was in the Eastern Bloc? Do you have a problem with it? Do you support it or slightly condone it? Do you give us even the slightest bit of understanding as to why we would be so determined to stop it from spreading? Do you see maybe a trace of merit in our opposition to the Soviet Union?