• @masquenox
    link
    19 months ago

    but clearly we weren’t comparable to the fucking Nazis

    Actually, the US actions in SE Asia is very comparable to what Germany and it’s allies did in eastern Europe and Russia… not even the Nazis attempted to use chemical warfare to starve their victim population into submission - the US did.

    What the Nazis did was nothing unique - it has been standard fare for colonialist powers long before WW2 happened, and it was stadard fare for the US both before and during the (so-called) “Cold War.” The only reason the Nazis became infamous for it was because they literally perpetrated it on the (so-called) “civilized” world’s doorstep on people that looked “white.”

    You still didn’t answer what it meant to break the US military.

    That’s because I won’t - there is no need. Col. Robert D. Heinl answered this all the way back in 1971.

    TLDR - “Our Army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

    • @Anti_Iridium
      link
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      What the Nazis did was nothing unique - it has been standard fare for colonialist powers long before WW2 happened, and it was stadard fare for the US both before and during the (so-called) “Cold War.”

      Homie, I think you should learn some more about the eastern front. The United States wasn’t on an ethnic cleansing campaign in Indochina. The Nazi’s were on an ethnic cleansing campaign.

      TLDR - “Our Army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.”

      Which had had which major defeats associated with it?

      • @masquenox
        link
        -19 months ago

        Homie,

        We are not friends.

        You mean like this? Oops, sorry… wrong war. It’s not my fault - when you get into the grisly details they all start looking the same.

        The United States wasn’t on an ethnic cleansing campaign

        Ooooh… you completely got me there. The millions dead in the Congo thanks to Belgium exploitation? Perfectly okay because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.” The millions starved to death in Bengal due to British colonialist policies during WW2? Perfectly fine because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.”

        If only Hitler had you around to handle his PR for him, eh?

        Which had had which major defeats associated with it?

        I’m just going to go ahead and assume it’s also a complete mystery to you why the vaunted US military failed so abysmally in Afghanistan, eh?

        It’s only a mystery to you and your ilk - why do you think that is?

        • @Anti_Iridium
          link
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          My Lai was not an ethnic cleansing campaign. It was not directed by the White House or the Pentagon. It was a massacre that had an attempted cover up.

          Is it really that hard to understand that something can be illegal, unethical, and immoral, and not be ethnic cleansing?

          British colonialist policies during WW2

          ’m just going to go ahead and assume it’s also a complete mystery to you why the vaunted US military failed so abysmally in Afghanistan, eh?

          This discussion is on vietnam, but cool.

          • @masquenox
            link
            -29 months ago

            My Lai was not an ethnic cleansing

            Oh… you didn’t get this the first time around. Here… let me help you along and repost it for you because you sure look like this is going to take you a lot of effort to get.

            Ooooh… you completely got me there. The millions dead in the Congo thanks to Belgium exploitation? Perfectly okay because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.” The millions starved to death in Bengal due to British colonialist policies during WW2? Perfectly fine because it wasn’t a clear-cut case of “ethnic cleansing.”

            Also, why bring up My Lai? There was nothing unique about My Lai - except for the fact that it ended up being reported in the US media because one chopper crew decided to grow a backbone and put a stop to it (for once). For the US military in Vietnam, My Lai was Tuesday.

            This discussion is on vietnam

            So do tell… how does a military end up being completely broken by a (supposedly) “inferior” enemy without actually having lost any decisive battles?

            I’d hate to think what would have actually happened if the US had lost a clear-cut battle in Vietnam - the entire US may just have imploded in on itself due to shock.

            • @Anti_Iridium
              link
              29 months ago

              I could have worded that better, my apologies there. The fact that someone stopped it, I think really is a difference.

              I never once said anything about the Vietcong being inferior.

              I’m done here, but I do suggest you go and do some more reading. Maybe watch Ken Burns Vietnam documentary to get started with.

              • @masquenox
                link
                -29 months ago

                I never once said anything about the Vietcong being inferior.

                This is not about what you said or didn’t say. The US empire is a fundamentally white supremacist empire - no different than the fundamentally white supremacist empires that gave birth to it - and therefore views anyone it wishes to subjugate, exploit and/or exterminate as “inferior.”

                but I do suggest you go and do some more reading.

                You first.