War is the New Normal

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
The Paris Peace Accords had little practical effect on the conflict, and were routinely flouted, mainly by the North Vietnamese, as well as the Saigon government, which enlarged the area under its control in 1973. North Vietnamese military forces gradually moved through the southern provinces and two years later were in position to capture Saigon.

Nixo ...[text shortened]... for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men.[9]

The US had supplied South Vietnam with enough planes to give it the fourth largest air force in the world in 1974. Billions of additional military aid was poured into South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords. The bottom line is our Vietnamization strategy did not work; the government there was too corrupt and the military too incompetent and lacking in morale to defeat the Communists. And the American people were not going to continue to support an endless stalemate costing US lives and billions of dollars.

So our government's goal of maintaining a non-Communist South Vietnam was defeated. It was an goal unworthy of the death, destruction and misery that was inflicted on both the people of the United States and of Vietnam (and Cambodia and Laos as well) but that is was the goal cannot be denied.

Vietnam was a defeat for the policy of the US government. That cannot be rationally disputed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The US had supplied South Vietnam with enough planes to give it the fourth largest air force in the world in 1974. Billions of additional military aid was poured into South Vietnam after the Paris Peace Accords. The bottom line is our Vietnamization strategy did not work; the government there was too corrupt and the military too incompetent and lacking ...[text shortened]...

Vietnam was a defeat for the policy of the US government. That cannot be rationally disputed.

what ever dude, this country has no stomach for war that is indeed true... Obama's world. Fluff and feathers.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The "Cold War" was a rhetorical device; it certainly was NOT a "permanent state of war".

The OP is talking about the psychology of it.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
You think we were defeated in Viet Nam.. really?

You sprayed the country with poison, napalm, and other war crimes, and you still got kicked out.

Yeah, I think you were defeated pretty soundly, Geneva-treaty-breaker!

Originally posted by no1marauder
Maybe you didn't have access to a newspaper on May 1, 1975 so this might be helpful:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fall_saigon.htm

The United States, in Vietnam, and in Korea before that, embraced a new dichotomy of so called limited war. Warfare was always total otherwise it was called something else.

No the United States did not lose the Vietnam war, but it never fully resolved to fight it either, so the 60,000 lives lost and countless dollars spent were wasted is some ill defined something less than War the popular word was conflict.

The lesson which should have been learned is, don't enter war without the full resolve to win above all else. And what reason justifies going to war? What was the last justifiable US war? In my opinion, the revolution against mother England. The rest were questionable, IMHO.

the world has always been at war.

Originally posted by no1marauder
War should be the realm of the extreme, of the abnormal. It should be the death of normalcy, not the dreary norm.

It’s never too soon, America, to enlist in that good fight!



Amen Brother.[/b]

I could quibble with some of his rationales, but his conclusion is spot on.

On that you get an Amen Brother from me too.

Originally posted by normbenign
The United States, in Vietnam, and in Korea before that, embraced a new dichotomy of so called limited war. Warfare was always total otherwise it was called something else.

No the United States did not lose the Vietnam war, but it never fully resolved to fight it either, so the 60,000 lives lost and countless dollars spent were wasted is some ill defi ...[text shortened]... S war? In my opinion, the revolution against mother England. The rest were questionable, IMHO.

norm: Warfare was always total otherwise it was called something else.

That is nonsense. Many, perhaps most wars, were fought for limited objectives.

The United States surely fought the Vietnam War. The problem was the war was an unwinnable one short of mass genocide (or perhaps masser genocide) of the Vietnamese people. The error in Korea was not accepting victory according to the US' initial strategy i.e. defending South Korea and trying to "win" by conquering North Korea. This brought in the Chinese who defeated this enhanced objective.

You should read Clausewitz who properly identifies "war as politics by other means" though his insight has been badly misunderstood. Bernard Brodie's excellent War and Politics takes a good, neo-Clausewitzian view of US policy in the 20th Century (though I don't agree with all his opinions).

Originally posted by no1marauder
norm: Warfare was always total otherwise it was called something else.

That is nonsense. Many, perhaps most wars, were fought for limited objectives.

The United States surely fought the Vietnam War. The problem was the war was an unwinnable one short of mass genocide (or perhaps masser genocide) of the Vietnamese people. The error in Korea ...[text shortened]... lausewitzian view of US policy in the 20th Century (though I don't agree with all his opinions).

In earlier times, the limitations of War was the wealth of the nation, king or emperor. Armies in general have to be paid, fed and transported, and is much more expensive if the enemy isn't your next door neighbor.

The US has figured how to create limitless borrowing, and so can fund War so long as someone, primarily their home banker the Fed will loan them the money.

The notion of out of bounds lines in wars seems to epitomize Korea and Vietnam. As Vietnam went on, it was clear the war was with the north, and could not be won as long as US forces did not pursue the enemy where he went. It was tantamount to Allied forces stopping at the border of Germany in WWII. A now deceased friend who fought in Korea, recalls encampment on the Yalu River watching the enemy play ping pong. This went on for weeks before the counter offensive came.

War isn't a game like MMA, or boxing, where you take a timeout or rest period between rounds. Even in those sports, if you didn't want to fight, you shouldn't have entered the ring.

Originally posted by normbenign
In earlier times, the limitations of War was the wealth of the nation, king or emperor. Armies in general have to be paid, fed and transported, and is much more expensive if the enemy isn't your next door neighbor.

The US has figured how to create limitless borrowing, and so can fund War so long as someone, primarily their home banker the Fed will loa ...[text shortened]... rounds. Even in those sports, if you didn't want to fight, you shouldn't have entered the ring.

An invasion of North Vietnam would have elicited the same response as an invasion of North Korea with the added disadvantage that there was an extremely strong insurgency in place in the South. Simply occupying a country willing to resist doesn't "win" a war a lesson that history constantly teaches and fools like you constantly ignore.

EDIT: I suggest you actually read a good history of the Korean War rather than relying on dubious anecdotes. Max Hastings book is a good one and Brodie covers the war well if briefly in the source already mentioned. MacArthur knew the Chinese were coming yet arrogantly assumed that he could easily defeat them because of American air and fire power. Instead, he was crushingly defeated.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
You sprayed the country with poison, napalm, and other war crimes, and you still got kicked out.

Yeah, I think you were defeated pretty soundly, Geneva-treaty-breaker!

You left out the napalm..... time to use it against ISIS now...
I have a feeling you are a little Pussy?

No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.




The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
•Return to Patrick Henry – Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death


Is there ever at time when this speech does not apply to the here and now?

Originally posted by redbadger
the world has always been at war.

That is the truth. The norm in earlier times was local wars, over border disputes, trade rules, enmity between rulers, religion, etc. The world is smaller now, and it is far more difficult to make things stay local.

I think the main concern for most of us is, are the wars our nation embarks on for the benefit of the people, or as has always been matters of pride for rulers.

Originally posted by no1marauder
An invasion of North Vietnam would have elicited the same response as an invasion of North Korea with the added disadvantage that there was an extremely strong insurgency in place in the South. Simply occupying a country willing to resist doesn't "win" a war a lesson that history constantly teaches and fools like you constantly ignore.

EDIT: I suggest ...[text shortened]... easily defeat them because of American air and fire power. Instead, he was crushingly defeated.

Key words "would have". In that case, that scenario ought to have been considered before the first advisers were sent in.

The American Civil War argues against your theory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
An invasion of North Vietnam would have elicited the same response as an invasion of North Korea with the added disadvantage that there was an extremely strong insurgency in place in the South. Simply occupying a country willing to resist doesn't "win" a war a lesson that history constantly teaches and fools like you constantly ignore.

EDIT: I suggest ...[text shortened]... easily defeat them because of American air and fire power. Instead, he was crushingly defeated.

My dead friend was in that defeat. I've heard about it first hand.