Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "" video.
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@rob6927 Here you basically admit your ignorance. The US expected to return to isolationism, so literally destroyed most of their war machines prior to Korea. Here's a source: "As an initial response to the invasion, Truman called for a naval blockade of North Korea and was shocked to learn that such a blockade could be imposed only "on paper" since the US Navy no longer had the warships with which to carry out his request.[331][332] Army officials, desperate for weaponry, recovered Sherman tanks from World War II Pacific battlefields and reconditioned them for shipment to Korea.[331] Army Ordnance officials at Fort Knox pulled down M26 Pershing tanks from display pedestals around Fort Knox in order to equip the third company of the Army's hastily formed 70th Tank Battalion.[333] Without adequate numbers of tactical fighter-bomber aircraft, the Air Force took F-51 (P-51) propeller-driven aircraft out of storage or from existing Air National Guard squadrons, and rushed them into front-line service. A shortage of spare parts and qualified maintenance personnel resulted in improvised repairs and overhauls. A Navy helicopter pilot aboard an active duty warship recalled fixing damaged rotor blades with masking tape in the absence of spares.[334]
US Army Reserve and Army National Guard infantry soldiers and new inductees (called to duty to fill out understrength infantry divisions) found themselves short of nearly everything needed to repel the North Korean forces: artillery, ammunition, heavy tanks, ground-support aircraft, even effective anti-tank weapons such as the M20 3.5-inch (89 mm) Super Bazooka.[335] Some Army combat units sent to Korea were supplied with worn out, 'red-lined' M1 rifles or carbines in immediate need of ordnance depot overhaul or repair.[336][337] Only the Marine Corps, whose commanders had stored and maintained their World War II surplus inventories of equipment and weapons, proved ready for deployment, though they still were woefully under-strength,[338] as well as in need of suitable landing craft to practice amphibious operations (Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson had transferred most of the remaining craft to the Navy and reserved them for use in training Army units)."
It was to the point that the North Koreans in many way were better armed than the US was at the time.
Vietnamese fought the Chinese with irregulars in open combat, and fought the US in guerilla warfare. Idk why you're lying about this, there was no extensive guerilla warfare against the Chinese in the Sino-Vietnamese War in comparison to the US-Vietnam War.
Middle estimated of North Vietnamese death is about 1,062,000 military and civilian, with the latter being around 65,000 from US bombings shellings. The US/South Vietnamese deaths estimate around 741,000...with the civilians making up around 391,000 deaths caused by the North Vietnamese. Put plainly, North Vietnam was the greatest butcher of Vietnamese in that war. Which is why their propaganda coup is so impressive; everyone thinks that the VietCong were totally just fighting US imperialism while the US was killing Vietnamese civilians...in reality they butchered far more civilians than the US could ever have done.
The US didn't support Cambodia outside of diplomatic support for its existence, again, the Vietnamese helped bring the Khmer Rouge into existence in the first place in the 1960's with the Chinese. The Cambodian Genocide is literally caused by Vietnam's imperialism, and the millions of deaths can be traced right back to Hanoi. There was no economic or military support by the US, but there was a LOT of military support by the North Vietnamese government to the Khmer Rouge in the 1960's.
Hey man, if the US is so weak as you say, then why do Vietnamese leaders constantly seek US support and attention? Why does all of East Asia turn to the US and not the mighty Vietnam? Because Vietnam is good at dying without giving up in their own territory, but isn't worth anything outside of it. That's just a blunt fact. Maybe that could change, but for now, Vietnam only matters in conjunction with other countries, not by itself.
Oh geez, I'm well aware of issues between China and Vietnam throughout history, by "new feud" I mean the explosion of rising tension since China has been pressing its claims over the South China Sea. Don't be obtuse.
I honestly don't really care what you think. Again, I never said it would be a walk in the park, I was just saying that it would have destroyed Vietnam. At least until the US public couldn't stand the mounting cost of an occupation and withdrew. The benefit of democracy is that if the US takes an imperialist action abroad, the public will kill it after too long. Really doesn't change the fact that in every conflict it engaged in, it decimated the opposing side; the difference is that its opponents don't care about the lives of their own people, really. A very American mistake to make to think that everyone else thinks like them LOL
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@rob6927 I didn't spin any facts, and I don't believe the US is #1 in everything. I just tell it like it is, though you do seem quite the Vietnamese nationalist in contrast since you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the dirty laundry your country had. And you waaaay oversell Vietnam itself to boot. Your leaders seem to be more prudent, and I know other Vietnamese that are not quite as weirdly hyper nationalist. So unlike you, I'll assume its just a you issue and not a "Vietnamese" thing. You know, its nice not being bigoted. :D
I don't know if you know this, but the US was hardly the undisputed #1 military superpower at the time. In fact, it only really became that during the Cold War when the US consistently kept up military expenditure to build up its logistical chain for all of its fancy equipment. As it turns out, having the equipment to defend held territory and supply said equipment is MUCH MUCH easier than deploying it hundreds of miles away. I literally cited how bad the US was ready for the Korean War; it literally DEMILITARIZED as it has always done after a big war due to isolationist beliefs.
Now you're being disingenuous to the extreme. You act like my prior statements contradict, but they don't. Yes, the US couldn't invade N Vietnam because of a China intervention, but it COULD handle it; the issue is that the US public would NOT be able to stomach a full-fledged total war for not clearly discernable reasons. The only reason the US public tolerates "small wars" like Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq is because the deaths/casualty rates are comparatively low. Take it to a total war scenario and US politicians will get crucified. As for the "Air Force killed millions" thing, sorry, I think I did say that and that wasn't true; I was more speaking in terms of North Vietnamese deaths to US troops. But the "main butcher" part is you not reading what I said; I said the Vietnamese were the "main butcher" to their own people in the war, which is a literal fact.
Half a million troops that were only there to hold South Vietnam, and were not allowed to ever take the fight to the enemy, or allowed to really crush the source of their attackers. They were essentially just forced to wait for more attacks and hope the North Vietnamese gave up. No army could ever hope to win, regardless of troop number under such conditions unless, as US leaders hoped.
It really is just kinda common sense that the US could conquer any country barring the likes of China and Russia. The former because of its growing military prowess, the latter because of its near-impossible terrain. A few other countries can be added if they actually up their military spending, but they often rely on the US for that.
You do realize that the passing of vaccines to Vietnam was in response to better relations, right? It wasn't the US that took the first step to warming relations, it was Vietnam when the US demanded that it give information to the fate of MIA US soldiers and Vietnam acquiesced. And the petitioning of former Vietnam War Vets like Senator McCain that ended the US trade embargo on Vietnam in 1994. It was after that that Vietnam agreed to pay the debts the South Vietnamese didn't pay to the US. That doesn't sound like the US trying to win over Vietnam at all, but if you say so.
The VP is a representative of the US, and I support her giving vaccines to Vietnam, so idk what you're trying to imply here. Her ticket was voted in, and that was her prerogative. It isn't like the US votes for every single issue/option.
The regional claims in the SCS in reality have nothing to do with "challenging the US". It has far more to do with China trying to secure its waterways from external threat by forcing other countries to align itself with their interests by holding their trade routes hostage via military islands. The US has not really acted against China since they started building the islands, at least until they really started pressing their claim. In a way, every country involved with the SCS is going against the "US international order" by making their claims; but that wasn't the issue. The issue was the aggressive nature of China's claims in recent years which could threaten US allies in the region. That is not only a threat to the international order which the US supports, but also a threat to US credibility in defending allied nations and their interests. That's more the issue here, but China itself saw it differently. They seek a return to their past as the sole hegemon in that corner of the world as the Middle Kingdom with all of their little tributaries meekly standing to the side. This is just a natural step in that direction, not necessarily a challenge to the US. It just turned out that way.
In reference to the Philippines losing territory, you're partially right. At the time, nobody in the US genuinely saw China as an aggressive power; the idea that China would try to steal territory from their neighbors would have gotten accusations of racism in 2016. And while the Philippines were very upset at Chinese actions, it was also very much against the US taking unilateral action against them as well. That sentiment very much is what made President Duterte's debut, and with China's growing influence is what allowed him to turn to China. If anything, I'd think you would be happy with that; the US has had a bad habit of jumping before it looked leading to unnecessary conflicts like in Vietnam itself. Jumping into conflict back then would have given China a lot of clout and made the US look like the aggressive nation in this scenario. Instead, China's actions broke the idea that it was just a peaceful nation wanting to trade.
Though being critical of US inaction is fair, I think. Probably the most fair thing you have commented about.
"But one thing you are right about is you need others to do the heavy lifting for you, as in most wars where you were involved." Which is why the US in every single conflict it was involved in has always been the largest contingent, largest supplier of equipment, usually the sole capable of moving troops/equipment, and always the force that achieved the most military objectives in a conflict. Problem being that a superpower's military cannot achieve political objectives, it can only accomplish military objectives. It can take and hold land, but it cannot transform it. It can hold territory from an external force indefinitely, but if it can't strike back at the source then they'll just keep coming back.
TLDR; the US military can crush 99% of the world's militaries, but it cannot achieve political objectives in a war without clear objectives or change a populace. The US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but that was not because its military was weak, it was because the political objectives were virtually impossible without some serious mass war crimes. Something the US can't stomach outside of total war.
Well, I made my point. I'll back off here, you can continue if you want though, if only for the benefit of others reading this mess.
1
-
1