8 days of undulterated bliss in the United Arab Emirates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Getting involved in a war without being prepared to do what's necessary to win it was the real madness. As Jacky Fisher, former Admiral of the Fleet put it: 'The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.'

This is a lesson the Americans seem oddly unwilling to learn.

---

I'm not so sure they actually want to win any of their current wars, in any meaningful way, as much as to create further chaos. For example, by smashing up Libya they've created more terrorism around Africa which is used as a reason for more interventions and ever higher military budgets (the latest increase in the annual military budget is higher than the total military budget in Russia) and more money for the arms manufacturers who sponsor the careers of the politicians who call in the wars. Trebles all round!

It is possible that the Afghanistan conflict is being kept going because apart from the alleged value of the poppy harvest to the covert budgets of a certain three-initial-acronym agency, the perpetual chaos hampers China's ability to achieve its new Silk Road trading aims.

And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Of course they could win it. Militarily, they were more than capable of winning it in double quick time. They just weren't prepared to do what was necessary, which was invade another country, anger the Chinese and kill a fùck ton of people (although that number almost certainly would have been fewer than they actually ended up killing by dragging the thing out for 10 years).

---

The Americans defined the rules of the game. They were very clear, 'winning the war' was stopping the flow of NVA and VC into South Vietnam and killing enough of them that they no longer wished to continue the fight. And they utterly failed to do so. The idea that they never fully unleashed their military because they lacked the balls to do so is nonsense, and McNamara - amongst many others - made it very clear that that was the case. They didn't unleash their military because they knew it wouldn't make any difference. Vietnam was not Germany, there was very little infrastructure to bomb and the country's geography made guerilla warfare much easier. McNamara knew what those who followed him subsequently discovered, that America's military could not win the war under the rules they themselves had defined.

If by 'invading' Vietman you mean landing troops all over Vietnam, taking control of the cities and towns, as the Nazis did with France, and then trying to control the country, that would have been equally futile. The cost to both sides would have been enormous and the Americans would have had to decide to stay there permanently and suffer the ongoing losses for many years until they finally gave up (as the Russians did in Afghanistan). Would that have 'won the war'?

America lost the war because it was not a war that could be won militarily. Thinking otherwise is making the same mistake that the Americans made. More bombing, more troops, more firepower - none of it would have made any difference in the long run, something they realized far too late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

I'm not so sure they actually want to win any of their current wars, in any meaningful way, as much as to create further chaos. For example, by smashing up Libya they've created more terrorism around Africa which is used as a reason for more inteventions and ever higher military budgets (the latest increase in the annual military budget is higher than the total military budget in Russia) and more money for the arms manufacturers who sponsor the careers of the politicians who call in the wars. Trebles all round!

It is possible that the Afghanistan conflict is being kept going because apart from the alleged value of the poppy harvest to the covert budgets of a certain three-initial-acronym agency, the perpetual chaos hampers China's ability to achieve its new Silk Road trading aims.

And so on.

---

Perpetual war for perpetual peace, sort of thing, you mean? I wouldn't hold that against them. They're the big dog. That means they have interests everywhere and have to protect them everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

The Americans defined the rules of the game. They were very clear, 'winning the war' was stopping the flow of NVA and VC into South Vietnam and killing enough of them that they no longer wished to continue the fight. And they utterly failed to do so. The idea that they never fully unleashed their military because they lacked the balls to do so is nonsense, and McNamara - amongst many others - made it very clear that that was the case. They didn't unleash their military because they knew it wouldn't make any difference. Vietnam was not Germany, there was very little infrastructure to bomb and the country's geography made guerilla warfare much easier. McNamara knew what those who followed him subsequently discovered, that America's military could not win the war under the rules they themselves had defined.

If by 'invading' Vietman you mean landing troops all over Vietnam, taking control of the cities and towns, as the Nazis did with France, and then trying to control the country, that would have been equally futile. The cost to both sides would have been enormous and the Americans would have had to decide to stay there permanently and suffer the ongoing losses for many years until they finally gave up (as the Russians did in Afghanistan). Would that have 'won the war'?

America lost the war because it was not a war that could be won militarily. Thinking otherwise is making the same mistake that the Americans made. More bombing, more troops, more firepower - none of it would have made any difference in the long run, something they realized far too late.

---

The Vietnamese could very quickly have been brought to a point where they did not have the means to resist. After which, mass, enforced migrations of population into resettlement camps ('concentration camps' as we called them in S.Africa) that separated the civilian population from any remaining resistance and took away any source of sustenance from the guerrillas would have been eminently effective.

It's perfectly possible to win as the larger state in asymmetrical warfare. You just have to be prepared to take the losses and to do some nasty shÃ*t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The Vietnamese could very quickly have been brought to a point where they did not have the means to resist. After which, mass, enforced migrations of population into resettlement camps ('concentration camps' as we called them in S.Africa) that separated the civilian population from any remaining resistance and took away any source of sustenance from the guerrillas would have been eminently effective.

It's perfectly possible to win as the larger state in asymmetrical warfare. You just have to be prepared to take the losses and to do some nasty shÃ*t.

---

And so in just 9 simple pages, we've gone from WES's holiday in a UAE hotel to concentration camps. wd b and awimb all round

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The Vietnamese could very quickly have been brought to a point where they did not have the means to resist. After which, mass, enforced migrations of population into resettlement camps ('concentration camps' as we called them in S.Africa) that separated the civilian population from any remaining resistance and took away any source of sustenance from the guerrillas would have been eminently effective.

It's perfectly possible to win as the larger state in asymmetrical warfare. You just have to be prepared to take the losses and to do some nasty shÃ*t.

---

The Americans spent the better part of 10 years trying to get to the point that they did not have the means to resist, and failed. More bombing and more men would not have changed that. As McNamara said, and I paraphrase, 'we significantly under-estimated the desire of the North Vietnamese to unite the country'.

Everything you've posted is consistent with Westmoreland's view on the war. And it was proven to be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

And so in just 9 simple pages, we've gone from WES's holiday in a UAE hotel to concentration camps. wd b and awimb all round

---

Wasn't there an overview of child sex tourism in there as well somewhere.

As you said, wd everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

Wasn't there an overview of child sex tourism in there as well somewhere.

As you said, wd everyone.

---

Not so much an overview as an insight given by our two widely traveled Far Eastern correspondents, Dutch and Pedro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

The Americans spent the better part of 10 years trying to get to the point that they did not have the means to resist, and failed. More bombing and more men would not have changed that. As McNamara said, and I paraphrase, 'we significantly under-estimated the desire of the North Vietnamese to unite the country'.

Everything you've posted is consistent with Westmoreland's view on the war. And it was proven to be incorrect.

---

How could it be proven incorrect since it was never tried? The Americans fought the war with one hand tied behind their backs. They couldn't stop the movement of men and munitions along the Ho Chi Minh trail because they weren't prepared to go into Cambodia and Laos in sufficient numbers - let alone into North Vietnam. Only by fighting an untrammelled war irrespective of boundaries could the US possibly have won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luis Anaconda

And so in just 9 simple pages, we've gone from WES's holiday in a UAE hotel to concentration camps. wd b and awimb all round

---

Well the UAE basically is a concentration camp for its migrant workers, so it's kind of appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

That's certainly true. We were as well staying out of that shītshow, though. Although we could have shown them a few tricks we'd learnt in the Malayan Emergency.

---

Wd Harold Wilson. Good Huddersfield lad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

How could it be proven incorrect since it was never tried? The Americans fought the war with one hand tied behind their backs. They couldn't stop the movement of men and munitions along the Ho Chi Minh trail because they weren't prepared to go into Cambodia and Laos in sufficient numbers - let alone into North Vietnam. Only by fighting an untrammelled war irrespective of boundaries could the US possibly have won.

---

No, they would have lost in the long run anyway. All subsequent analysis has shown this to be correct including McNamara's. The overwhelming consensus post '75, even amongst those involved in the decision making from 63-68, was that there was no military option that would have led to a victory. Many knew that as early as '63.

They had two choices; get out, or commit to staying and trying to control the country as an occupying force. Even ignoring the fact that they absolutely did not want to do the latter, even if they did try the North Vietnamese would simply have turned it into a guerilla war and waited them out. They weren't going anywhere, it was their country after all.

The overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people wanted foreign powers out and the reunification of the country. Given this, the Americans were fighting the people and as a result were always going to ultimately lose. As Johnson said, it was a war for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, and the military was not the tool to win that fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

are now over and all I have to show for it is this wonderful tan and a liver in need of repair. :-(

Other than the wonderful memories of laying in the salt water of the Gulf of Oman whilst gazing at the Al Hajar mountains, refreshing swims with my wife and children in the quite wonderful pool, the endless array of pints, cocktails and bubbly, the magnificence of the burrata at the Italian restaurant, the genius of the roast duck at the Asian restaurant, the mouth watering steaks at the Gonu Bar overlooking the Gulf of Oman and the general bonhomie with the families whom we met and enjoyed many meals and discussions, of course.

'Ave that you Dutch Paddy c*nt :-)

---

What's the rule on cavorting with local Emirati chicks, eh? Does Arsenal's sponsorship deal extent to her supporters, giving you free rein in the local sex pits? Show the Gunners badge, ten bucks off? Asking for a friend.