>I did what I had to do to win, but somebody wouldn’t let us win!
Unironically, what did Rambo mean by this?
>I did what I had to do to win, but somebody wouldnt let us win!
>I did what I had to do to win, but somebody wouldn’t let us win!
Unironically, what did Rambo mean by this?
The "plan" for the Vietnam war was literally to just sit in south vietnam and let them attack you again and again, allowing them to retreat, regroup, and rearm in north vietnam and cambodia over and over and over again without consequence until they hopefully just got tired of attacking us, because they didn't want to fully commit to a war they were fricking drafting americans for
That doesn't mean you should spit on them at airports and call them baby killers.
Where did Vietnam line up with the Moon Landing? Just watched Indy 5 and something was strange...
There always seemed to be big moon mission events when distractions were needed.
Fair.
Indy 5 happened during the Moon Landing and they had a parade with the actual astronauts in a convertible and Indy gave them a confused look.
In that same parade, they had war protesters. "Hell no we won't go" was an actual plot point in a chase scene.
So they're welcoming home American heroes, red, white, blue ticker tape parade... and in the same breath, protesting Vietnam?
Can someone make it make sense? Even use movie logic, I don't care.
>Can someone make it make sense? Even use movie logic, I don't care.
Somebody save me!
they called them baby killers because they unashamedly killed children on camera
>noooo I proudly killed a bunch of kids and now I'm being shamed for it nooo
like what do you want?
For people not to give a shit about chinks?
>they called them baby killers because they unashamedly killed children on camera
Damn EVERY soldier did that? Thats crazy.
no, but a surprisingly higher number than you would think did. its made even worse by the fact that they were the invading force
really dumb
could have worked if they focused enough on building infrastructure for the territory they controlled, you know, brought that 'wealth and democracy' they promised but were too focused on raping civilians to ever implement.
He wanted to go into north vietnam and slaughter every asiatic village but the USA wasn't allowing its troops to do raids into that territory for fear of escalating the war and getting Soviet or Chinese troops doing the same to south vietnam.
More like air raids were a lot easier. Many of the casualties in the vietcong side were women and children killed by air raids
Why did the US spend 20 years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq just for it to become a puppet of Iran and in Afgnanistan just for it to become a puppet of China?
Hubris. Someone thought the backwards sand people would change their ways but surprise surprise they fricking didn't
It means the Commander who was in charge of the war made terrible judgement calls. I've seen it happen before and it's gut-wrenching stuff.
UHHHHHHHH
KINO?
pot smoking hippies
Vietnam was lost due to political shenanigans rather than from any real combat losses.
This. America piled asiatics a mile high. The same with Afghanistan and Iraq. Just looking at the casualty reports from the battles, the combat was incredibly one sided and those are just the bodies we were able to confirm.
How many aircraft did US lose in Vietnam?
the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 2,197 of the losses were fixed-wing, and the remainder rotary-wing
then why didn't they win?
it's almost like the united states went into these war with goals that extended beyond "kill asiatics and arabs"
Did you read the post I was replying to for context? No. No you didn't.
>first post says US could've won if politics didn't get in the way
>second post says yeah US killed so many people
>I replied to the second post
explain to me how the second post is not agreeing with the first, are you autistic?
>war is about how many people you can kill because I play Hardpoint and S&D like it's TDM
ptfo moron
I literally just said it wasn't like that. Do you have issues with reading comprehension?
Idk which one you are but the first comment is implying that if it weren't for "political shenanigans" the US would have won due to having a higher KDR like it's Call of Duty. The 2nd comment is also bragging about the height of the American KDR in a war they lost and another war they're going to lose.
>but the first comment is implying that if it weren't for "political shenanigans" the US would have won due to having a higher KDR like it's Call of Duty
No, I think they would've bombed those asiatics back to the stone age, and then moved in to mop up what was left. Political shenanigans prevented this outcome thanks to geopolitical pressure from China and the USSR.
>No, I don't think they would've won by having more kills I think they would have won by having more kills
moron
>You think of they destroyed the enemy's material and industry they would be unable to sustain the war !?!!!?
Yes. How is this complicated?
Idk if you noticed but American trust in their own nation is the lowest it's ever been and declining because the US has spent the better part of a century killing people in other nations just to prove how much they can kill. Ethnically cleansing entire nations isn't good for your nation's morale and causes division and infighting that can lead to balkanization. You're profoundly stupid if you think that if you kill everyone you win.
>WHY DO YOU KEEP INSISTING THAT IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO SUPPLY A WAR MATERIALLY, THEY CAN'T FIGHT IT?!?!!!?
Because they can't?
Now, are you going to stop putting words in my mouth? I give you my word that I'll also stop.
People will always have the means to fight wars. When you murder the innocent in war, your enemy gains support from his countrymen who see your acts as an injustice. You also lose support from your countrymen because they also see this as an injustice. If you persist long enough the amount of people supporting your war will decrease past the point that you can no longer fight it against the exponentially developing mass of guerilla forces and partisans (some of whom are literally born into war hating you) further emboldened by all your actions.
>People will always have the means to fight wars
kek, tell that to the Boxer rebellion
The boxers lost for the exact reasons I explain in my post.
The Boxer's lost because they were morons wielding swords in the face of modern weaponry. Their military defeats directly contributed to their downfall since it turns out no, magic chi dragons don't do much against rifles, and you can't maintain legitimacy for long when you're clearly incompetent.
Any other bad takes you want them give me?
The Boxer's lost because they had little to no support for their cause by the time they were defeated. Military technology doesn't mean shit you moron. The US military gave a bunch of military technology to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and it didn't do shit against old soviet weaponry and stolen/salvaged/improvised mechanized units because 97% of the country didn't support them.
>they had little to no support for their cause
Because they lost, and kept on losing, due to a lack of the material means to effectively prosecute a war effort.
>Military technology doesn't mean shit you moron
Now THIS is a take. Please, contact the DoD and tell them that they should stop any and all military research, new technology is pointless!
>The US military gave a bunch of military technology to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and it didn't do shit against old soviet weaponry and stolen/salvaged/improvised mechanized units because 97% of the country didn't support them.
Nope, now you're conflating conventional defeat and an insurgency leading to an imperial withdrawal. If S. Vietnam had lost control of the north after conquering it, then I would agree with you.
>dude they lost because they lost because I worship technology like a god
You're a moron. I can't say this enough. You're a moron. ISIS took over Iraq in a matter of days with old howitzers, mortars tied to consumer drones, Honda technicals and katyusha trucks after the United States personally trained the Iraqi military and gave them BILLIONS of dollars of high tech equipment, which landed into ISIS hands, who they themselves started to lose, (despite their newly acquired military equipment) because they had heavily declining support for their cause.
>HURR DURR I LOVE SUCKING wiener
That's nice, could you maybe try addressing what I actually said?
The first thing you said amounted to you sticking your thumbs in your ears saying lalala nononono I can't hear you so I addressed that by factually stating that you're a moron, twice. The 2nd and 3rd parts are addressed. You're the moron that thinks you fight insurgencies with airstrikes and doubles down on the tactic despite losing multiple wars like this.
Frick me.
I was agreeing with the other guy that the actual combat was effective from the American side, not that the war win/loss was measured by casualty count. READ homie, READ!
>the actual combat was effective from the American side
It wasn't. They made a full retreat.
he did a lot of stuff to try to win the war but in the end it was out of his hands
Find a war that was protested against as much as Vietnam, prior to Vietnam. WWII wasn't even protested against as much and 93% of the population voted against it.
Now determine who is very much pro-Communist.
Also a reminder that Joseph McCarthy was 100% correct and was murdered because of it.
Literally me.
Reminder that Nixon won the re-election. Rambo is a good movie but it's full burger cope
The political establishment (Congress) withdrew support for the war. The military didn't have the funding it needed to win the war against the commies in Hanoi.
Kino scene
>Unironically, what did Rambo mean by this?
He was talking about the politicians who lacked the will to order the USAF to attack infrastructure in North Vietnam and didn't allow the Army and Marines to invade it.