If the war is between

‘I dont believe we lost the war in vietnam.’

Believe it or not but it was a total defeat and humiliation for the US.

How can you say you dont believe you lost the war in Vietnam? You are clearly in denial. Over 50,000 US troops dead and wounded in the war in Nam, Over 500,000 US troops stationed there during the peak of the war and still you could not beat the VC.

Whether you blame the defeat on the troop, on the US govenment policies surrounding the war or on the US public opinion, YOU STILL LOST GOOD AND PROPER.

Why dont you just accept it and stop making yourself look foolish.

Kiasu

I have no doubts about the will power of our men and women in uniform, I guess the true question is does the AMERICAN PUBLIC have the willpower to allow the military to get the job done, the answer to that is most likely NO, and that is what it boils down to.

the willpower to stand against a country that could pose a threat to the rest of the world if left unchecked and allowed to develop their nuclear arsenal- yes I believe our armed forces would have the willpower to stand up to that. our MODERN military is staffed by people who have chosen to serve this country, and were not forced into it- there alone lies the key to maintaining the willpower to do what is right.

I am simply pointing out the obvious- WE HAVE RAPTERS, we have STEALTH FIGHTERS AND BOMBERS- the F 15s and f 18s come in AFTER the SAM sites have been taken out by stealth and cruise missiles. adviceman wanted a realistic evaluation of our capabilites- I provided that.

I still do not see where we would be defeated by IRAN givin the facts that we have bases of operations on both sides of them, we have the firepower.

U.S. still defeats IRAN.

stockpiles are good, fresh troops are good, but that still does not spell defeat for the U.S.

we are not discussing VIET NAM, I believe the question was directed towards IRAN VS. THE U.S.

DID I MISS SOMETHING HERE OR WHAT?

viet nam was a POLITICAL defeat - but it is another time and place, if you truly look at that war, we lost from the political side of things- the government of the day had the militarys hands tied behind their backs. the body count of the VC and north vietnamese was quite a bit higher than the losses we suffered. WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE??? IRAN IS NOT VIET NAM- NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Yes, well, most of the American public has never served in the military, so it’s likely they’ll always be critical, and attempt to limit the military. Gosh, wish we were back in the days when practically every politician served in the military at one point or the other…

Baldin, I am completely in line with your sentiments, despite the fact that I have a bit more to add to them. However, we are dealing with an era where the majority of people are stupid and apathetic. And when something happens? They go crying, “President, save us!” We can blame it one our parents, or our grandparents, on whoever the hell you want, but the fact is that the majority of people are evasive idiots. I admit, I have made stupid or less-than-acceptable decisions. However, pragmatism is my doctrine. What works WORKS. No exceptions. However, most people seem to have taken on a variation of the 1960’s mindset, one that hides behind “logic” and “open-mindedness”.

If it were up to me(which it doubtfully ever will be), I would have told MacArthur to go straight on to Beijing and to drive the North Koreans all the way into Soviet Russia, where they belong.

If it were up to me, the most involvement in Vietnam that the US and its Allies would have had was in training the South Vietnamese forces and providing pilots for aircraft, along with Special Forces meant for the rescue of any shot down.

If it were up to me, the Middle-East would be left to its own. I doubt there would be nearly as many anti-American groups out there if we didn’t interfere in their politics. The only exception might be Israel, and the limit would be military advisers and equipment, and only because they were hated since the existence of Judaism.

baldwinwolf , you clearly stated as a generalisation:

“conventional warfare- WE WIN. (Maybe you should have said’ WE WOULD WIN) non-conventional guerilla warfare and cowardly terrorist attacks- WE STILL WIN- BUT IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE LONGER TO GET THE RATS OUT IN THE OPEN, AND AWAY FROM THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS THEY HIDE IN.”

The US is not invincible!

You lost in Nam and had to walk away like a dog with its tail between its legs.

You state: “The body count of the VC and north vietnamese was quite a bit higher than the losses we suffered”

Of course it was. It is now an accepted fact that bodies of innocent civilians were included within these counts just to please the politicians and to keep them supporting the war.

You also say:

“viet nam was a POLITICAL defeat” The USA was fighting against North Vietnam. However you dress it up, you were beated good and proper.

Therefore your statement above is wrong. (Perhaps you should have added to the statement, ‘Except for the Vietnam war when the US was well and truly defeated’. just to avoid any misunderstandings.

I for one have great respect for the USA, the self nominated moral policeforce of this world.

:-)

if you choose to look at the specifics about IRAQ , the enemy has changed since we went in. we DID defeat the forces of saddam- IRAQI MILITARY- REPUBLICAN GUARD- DEFEATED- GONE. terrorist insurgents in IRAQ- more or less defeated, there have not been any major offenses mounted against us. are we done there? nope , not quite yet.

as far as IRAN is concerned, once the U.S. shifts it’s gaze onto them- they will be defeated. I believe we would have a LARGER coalition that would help us stand against IRAN than what we had going against IRAQ. some of the IRAQI tribes I am sure would ally themselves with us as well.

history has shown that extreme force of military might and material is not a guarantee of a victory, BUT the U.S. has arguably the best generals and military strategists in the world, couple that with the best and brightest MILITARY FORCES and the proper motivation and you get the end result of IRAN GETTING THEIR BUTTS KICKED BIG TIME.

conventional warfare- WE WIN. non-conventional guerilla warfare and cowardly terrorist attacks- WE STILL WIN- BUT IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE LONGER TO GET THE RATS OUT IN THE OPEN, AND AWAY FROM THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS THEY HIDE IN.

I believe I stated that - just before the generals and strategists part.

“history has shown that extreme force of military might and material is not a guarantee of a victory”

as it worked out- our strategists got the job done- regardless of what holes you poke in the strategy that YOU as a civilian were allowed to see, looking back in hind sight.

the facts of the matter- IRAQ’S MILITARY WAS KEEPING IRAN FROM ATTACKING- the 2 nations had been bitter enemies for years, yet neither country invaded the other. so here it is- we kicked the IRAQI MILITARY’S BUTT BIG TIME- WE WOULD DO THE SAME TO IRAN.

as far as our other theatres of operation- it is going to take time- afghanistan is a very large place, lots of places to hide and attack from, and similiar to VIET NAM- we have an enemy that is hiding across a border in another country, so that pretty much puts us into a DEFENSIVE posture. we are forced into WAITING for the enemy to cross the border and attack. I believe we may soon be in PAKISTAN to help protect their government, once that happens and we are allowed to expand our operations into that country- guess what? our odds of success greatly increase against the taliban. our strategies are working but yes it does take time to identify an enemy that is hiding amongst civilians, an enemy that does not wear a “uniform” . we are fighting a different style of warfare here- against a more deceptive style of enemy. and we are going against what sun tsu wrote “ a country that fights in a long drawn out engagement is destined to lose” but what other choices have we? terrorism needs to feel the might and power of the united states- there are severe penalties for targeting us.

we would not lose to iran, not a chance.

“non-conventional guerilla warfare and cowardly terrorist attacks- WE STILL WIN- BUT IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE LONGER TO GET THE RATS OUT IN THE OPEN, AND AWAY FROM THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS THEY HIDE IN.”

That was one hell of a ‘win’ you had in Vietnam after 15 years of fighting baldwinwolf .

smile

Kiasu

Unfortunately, tseirpeht is correct. Very unfortunate…

But really and truly, we’re the ones who screwed up a good portion of the Middle-East, using covert ops to bring certain people into power, setting off a chain reaction that eventually set the circumstances we have now. Really and truly, our actions in the middle-east are just us cleaning up our decades-old mess.

So they could have in Iraq amblessed but many people would not be convinced that in the longer term, the USA won that war.

Kiasu

I dont believe we lost the war in vietnam. due to popular belief the VZ lost way more men some say half a million. in conventional warfare the US would defeat iran, but when iran started a nuke program they brought nuclear warfare to the table. in nuclear warfare nobody wins.

So how come Vietnam whipped your asses good and proper baldwinwolf ?

500,000 troops in Nam at its peak and after 15 years, the US walk away defeated with 50,000 dead and wounded.

Sorry to raise the issue of this humiliation but you did provoke it by saying:

“non-conventional guerilla warfare and cowardly terrorist attacks- WE STILL WIN- BUT IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE LONGER TO GET THE RATS OUT IN THE OPEN, AND AWAY FROM THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS THEY HIDE IN.”

Kiasu

yes irans air force does present a challenge, but in the face of STEALTH technology, our longer range stand off missile capability, and simply very well trained (and now combat tested) pilots- we still win. an air war is a TECHNOLOGICAL WAR where the country with the better technology is going to win. if you do not have stealth capabilities- you are simply an airbourne target- very few places to hide, and flying on the “deck” will give you cover from radar- but it gives you very little to no advantage in an air to air fight. would iran be a ‘push over”- no, but I still believe that the U.S. would prevail.

Touche.

Though Iran DOES have an intact air force. Don’t forget that. If we were to give them warning like we did Iraq, I think they could put up a better overall defense, since they haven’t had to deal with repeated conflicts with the US and their neighbors over the past 20 years, which obviously depleted their regular military.

no one will win, it will bring more suffer and misrable to the world

US has a far more advanced military.

your military background should have then allowed to know that the united states military would NEVER be cut off from its supply chain- AS LONG AS WE HAVE AIR SUPERIORITY . which we did have in IRAQ. so the “failed” strategy example you gave is not a viable point. our strategy worked. see C5 galaxy, CH47 chinook, C17 globemaster III, C141 starlifter.

of course I did not miss the iraq- iran wars, thus the statement- neither of those countries took the other one over- to my knowledge both IRAQ and IRAN remained sovereign countries- meaning that their militaries were evenly matched enough to hold each other back.

it is simple common sense WE BEAT IRAQS MILITARY- like it was nothing, and suddenly you expect us to believe that IRAN (who was equal to iraq) would give us a run for our money? I AM NOT BUYING THAT- THAT IS SIMPLY NOT REALISTIC. IRAN is not a leader in weapons technology, sure they have some tanks and planes and ships, but that does not mean that they in any way compare to OUR CAPABILITIES.

yes I am a PROUD AMERICAN, and yes VIET NAM WAS A POLITICAL DEFEAT- THE BUTT KICKING KIASU IS ELUDING TO DIDN’T HAPPEN. the POLITITIANS LOST THAT WAR- NOT OUR GROUND AND AIR FORCES. the U.S. military is very much different NOW than it was THEN- so the whole VIET NAM EXAMPLE HAS NO BEARING ON THIS DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER.

and to compare the terrain of IRAN TO AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A REALISTIC COMPARISON EITHER TOTALLY DIFFERENT TERRAINS.

the U.S. IS NOT INVINCIBLE , TRUE, but anyone who believes that IRAN WOULD GIVE US ANY PROBLEMS IN A CONVENTIONAL OR GUERILLA FIGHT NEEDS TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK ON CURRENT MILITARY TECH.

kiasu- perhaps you need to READ THE STATEMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ANSWER GIVEN- MY ENTIRE ANSWER WITH THAT STATEMENT INCLUDED WAS ON THE TOPIC OF IRAN ( NOT VIET NAM, NOT GRENADA, NOT KOREA- I R A N) THE QUESTION CONCERNED I are A N.

with our current spec ops. forces we have a better capability to take on our enemies in any kind of warfare.

I have not seen any evidence presented that shows that IRAN is somehow superior- so I will break it down for you.

IRANs military- ( NOT NORTH VIET NAM, NOT KOREA, NOT CHINA, NOT SOVIET UNION) I are A N.

IRAN GROUND FORCES- no challenge, we fight them- they would eventually crumble- just like IRAQ. against our tanks, support aircraft, attack helicopters- they have no chance.

IRANs AIRFORCE- with our stealth technology- they may as well not even launch- the RAPTOR can target multiple planes from a long ways away from the targets, the IRAN aircraft never even see the american plane that shot them down- how are they going to defend against that?

IRANS SURFACE TO AIR MISSILE CAPABILITY- here again STEALTH WINS THE DAY- they can’t get a missile lock- they can’t hit the target. as soon as they attempt to get a missile lock- we pick that up and again- LASER GUIDED MUNITIONS COME RAINING DOWN.

IRANS HEAVY ARMOR- surplus RUSSIAN tanks- against the M1 ABRAMS- GIVE ME A BREAK- IT WOULD END UP BEING THE SAME AS IRAQS FEARSOME TANK CORPS (WHAT A JOKE THAT WAS). plus our air to ground CLOSE AIR SUPPORT JETS- drive your tank out into the open and BOOM laser guided munitions begin raining from the sky. hard to fight an armored battle that way.

IRANS NAVY- against the navy of the U.S., are you kidding me? they would not stand a chance- the persian gulf could use some more artificial reefs- built by IRAN.

ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE HERE? the only way IRAN could ever hope to even hold out would be to use the tactics of hiding in the civiian population- exactly what is happening in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. unless you are going to imply that they would use NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, or biological weapons on us- BAD IDEA, we still have NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, we do have a stockpile of VX and other biological weapons, should we ever decide to stoop to their level (which we never would).

you want a realistic evaluation- there it is. UNITED STATES WINS AGAINST IRAN. operating from IRAQ what we need is already there. can we afford a third battlefront at this time- sure, IRAQ is pretty much down to small skirmishes, road side bombings- if we began fighting IRAN , most of the combatants are coming from there anyway.

The US would attack in discriminatory, Iran would not. Our technology far surpasses them but we would be forced to play nice.

America will make it a wreck just like it made poor Afghanistan and poor Iraq a mess.It will prance around,showing off how wonderful it is,how its fighting,etc,and looking all sad and sorry that the Iranians hate them(duh,why shouldnt they,you’re terrorrizing their nation!!!)Then it will kill,slaughter,burn,as it usually does.In the end,I HOPE Iran wins.God bless Iran!!!:)

America has far too many assets it could bring to bear.

Baldin is correct. There were so many politics involved in Vietnam that we really couldn’t do anything. We would go in and take a hill one day, only to be told that for political reasons, we had to leave, giving it right back to an enemy. And that we could only fly on certain, pre-determined routes, ect. That’s the reason some called it the “Politicians War”.

In the middle-east, we’ve left it in the hands of the military, and considering the circumstances, I think we’re doing well. Not as good as we could be doing, but acceptable in my eyes.