Topic: Re-evaluation -America Won the Vietnam War ! -
esecallum
Ex-Member
posted
America Won the Vietnam War ! - Yes you heard right.
Many established histories are being re-assessed nowadays in the light of new information and advancement of understanding.
We constantly hear about America's defeat in Vietnam.
I revisted this war.After studying it for 1 week I came to an astonishing conclusion!
I was thinking and after considerable study about the Vietnam war when suddenly it dawned on me that we Americans had actually won that war ALTHOUGH HISTORY BOOKS CLAIM WE LOST.
YOU SEE THE WINNING OF WARS NEEDS TO BE REDEFINED.
It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
People are a country's most important resource and take 20 years to replace.By killing people America wins the wars.
In Vietnam we killed 6000000 Vietnamese.They killed only 58000 Americans.
Thus each American killed 10 of them..the enemy.
Thus an American can kill an average of 10 of them before getting killed.
This means America won the Vietnam War.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaawwwwwwwww!!!!!
In fact America by this definition has won every single war because we kill more.
We always kill more.
When you redefine winning by body count America always wins.
No more talk about loosing any war.
We won every war.We always win.
Always.
More recently in Irak 5000 Americans have been killed but have managed to kill a million of them terrorists...
This means each American can kill at least a 100 terrorists!!!
This is astonishing.The kill ratio has gone up from 1 to 10 to 1 to 100 in 50 years.
This shows America is the technological master.
Extrapolating further this will mean in another 50 years a single American soldier could kill a thousand of the enemy!!!
Just Imagine.
Amazing.
An army of 1000 American soldiers could kill a million of the enemy easily.
Wow! Wow! Wow!
In an hundred years time a single American could kill 10000 of the enemy.
In 200 years a single American could kill a 100000 of the enemy.
An ARMY OF 1000 soldiers could thus kill a hundred million of the enemy.
That is 100 000 000 ...wow...an entire country could be destroyed by a thousand American soldiers.
We don't even need to use nukes since we are masters of weaponary.
This would actually make us Americans gods since we would have the power of life and death against all those would dare attack us.
This make me proud to be an American.
I hold up my head high when i walk the street.
My heart swells with pride.
I know we are the dominant force.
We are on the way up and will rise to the very zenith of creation.
IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
I have to admit, this is a very interesting post with a very interesting point. No, I am dead serious.
Dubya pretty much cast America's reputation in the gutter. Whereas Afghanistan may have had SOME justification, Iraq was just plain stupidity, a war started on flimsy evidence, with victory declared without an adequate post-war plan. Dubya has cast America's reputation in the gutter, and that is a stain that will not leave for some time to come.
When we think about it, we are nowhere close to winning this so-called "war on terror". In the wake of this "war", we have seen people's liberties being chipped away. People attacked and mistreated simply because of their religious background, or their colour of their skin. Due process is thrown out the window. People's lives are irreparibly harmed.
And what if Iraq did have WMDs? What if American soldiers actually found the darned things and vindicated Dubya's venom and anger? What next? Would Canada be the friendly neighbour to the north or an annexed American State? Would Iran have been the next target? Would there be less evidence needed to justify an invasion? Would anyone look at a Muslim in the same way again, or would we assume that all Muslims are American-hating zealots? Those are outcomes that are hard to imagine, but we came very close to those realities, even without WMDs, something that I think none of us wanted to see happen.
If there was a "war on terror" to be waged, I don't think it should have simply been a "scorched-earth" policy as Dubya had promoted. What should have been done? Well I don't have the answer to that either given that I am not an esteemed politician. But it is mostly agreed that Dubya's actions have done more harm to the world than help.
Will we ever learn the lessons from Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan? No way we can tell. But one can only hope that future leaders will not abide by the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by esecallum: It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
If that's the case, then the Nazis must have won the Second World War considering they were responsible for millions more deaths in both the civilian and military fields than the Allies ever were.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, but they don't count, because they're Nazis.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
This is satire, right?
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
quote:Originally posted by esecallum: It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
If that's the case, then the Nazis must have won the Second World War considering they were responsible for millions more deaths in both the civilian and military fields than the Allies ever were.
Meh...the Russians and Chinese killed a lot more (of their own people). Guess they won the war on themselves.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
esecallum
Ex-Member
posted
This definition of winning wars only applies after 1945.
The reason for this is the huge advancement in our technological prowess in ww1 and ww2 spurred on by the wars.
Prior to this it does not apply.
Remember prior to 1945 soldiers were largeley cannon fodder,especially in the less civilized countries.
posted
Oh, that's brilliant. I'm sure the Romans said the exact same thing back in the first or second century CE.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Um. Wow. Just wow. If this were another joke or satire topic started by a Flare newbie, fine. The fact that this person registered over a year ago and still posted this... I'm not sure if I should be laughing.
Vietnam eh... well. It's been a long time since I read up on it. All in all. Assuming US forces killed more than the bad guys killed Americans. Fact is, there was no victory. The whole point was to stop the spread of Communism. And in that regard the US failed.
-------------------- I'm slightly annoyed at Hobbes' rather rude decision to be much more attractive than me though. That's just rude. - PsyLiam, Oct 27, 2005.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
Does the JJ-Ent's naccells have enough room to at least flip 90 degrees out?
posted
I'm actually quite flabbergasted as to how you haven't been banned yet. Also, being a current member of that wonderful organization you call "the Army", ONLY 58,000 KIA isn't a very good number.
You really suck at life.
-------------------- "Its coming on. I just saw the wall move..."
Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
posted
Wars with definite objectives are won or lost by the realization (or lack thereof) of those objectives. Waging a war on something so subjective as "terror" allowed Bushco to declare victory whenever and to use whatever as the basis for that "victory".
If killing people equals vitory then the US lost Vietnam doubly so, as they could have nuked the country and both killed enough enemy soldiers to stop resistance and avoid years of costly military operations which killed tens of thousands of Americans and led to massive political fallout (no pun intended).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
I don't think he is trying to be "satirical", but I see his post as something a little more "cynical". I see it as more as an issue with how the U.S. has handled foreign relations, moreso how it has applied force in such situations.
The U.S. pretty much got driven out of Vietnam. The U.S. has done a pretty shitty job with Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the only people who think they actually are winning these darned wars are those who started it in the first place.
I'm not about to dismiss esecallum's post as incoherent and him as a flame troll and wonder "why he isn't banned yet". He brought out an interesting point, and that is how the U.S. has behaved from the Vietnam War to present day. Maybe it's me, but I wonder if the lessons of Vietnam were even learned in the first place.
Maybe because I'm Canadian.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
