The batttle for Chosin

[rightwinger]

you must not have understood my previous post
here:
we lost to the communist:
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
and---guess what?? the US is ok!
we didn't need to be there..it was a waste
we get involved in too much crap

Bay of Pigs--$$$$ lost
Nicaragua ???!!!

...first we are friends with and helping the Taliban/Afghanis --then we are at war over there
...first we are friends with Iran--then enemies with Iran and friends with Iraq helping Iraq fight Iran
then we go to war with Iraq !!!!!!!????!! WTF?

we need to stay out of a lot of these insignificant conflicts

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nonsense.......what needs to be understood is why America was so weak that the communists felt emboldened to attack S. Korea?

you must not have understood my previous post
here:
we lost to the communist:
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
and---guess what?? the US is ok!
we didn't need to be there..it was a waste
we get involved in too much crap

Bay of Pigs--$$$$ lost
Nicaragua ???!!!

...first we are friends with and helping the Taliban/Afghanis --then we are at war over there
...first we are friends with Iran--then enemies with Iran and friends with Iraq helping Iraq fight Iran
then we go to war with Iraq !!!!!!!????!! WTF?

we need to stay out of a lot of these insignificant conflicts

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

All of this is true. But there was one more overriding reason why the Vietnam was was unwinnable. The S. Vietnam government was thoroughly corrupt, and was not supported by the people. In fact, the entire economy of the South was based on American war money, with the major industry being black market American goods, prostitution, drugs, cigarettes, and anything that they could steal from American war imports.

It really was as simple as that.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As for Korea, the Chinese played MacArthur like a violin. They started working with N. Korea about the time that MacArthur crossed the 38th parallel going north (against President Truman's order's, I might add). They massed thousands of troops on their side of the border. When MacArthur was about halfway through N. Korea, the Chinese began crossing the Yalu in small groups, and headed south down the mountain ridges, They would attack MacArthur in the valley's at night (where thew roads are) and he would drive them off. The N. Koreans would be gone in the morning, and Mac assumed that his superior forces and won yet another battle. Mao knew that Mac was an egocentric narcissist, and would think that he was on the verge of destroying the N. Korean army, so Mac allowed himself to get sucked deeper and deeper into the north. When the Chinese finally attacked in earnest, only one or two days short of the Yalu, Mac was already surrounded and did not know it. In today's vernacular, Mac had already jumped the shark. Being fired was the kindest way to end his career before he fucked things up even worse.

 

[whitehall]

Vietnam was unwinnable because LBJ used a fraudulent "crisis" in the first place and set up the rules so that we could win every battle and still lose the war.. Former college kids and typists and assorted a-holes in the CIA were dictating military strategy and policy while the Generals were forced to sit on the sidelines. Democrat administrations never did trust the Military and crooked regimes like the Kennedy brothers were well used to illegally having the CIA do their dirty work even when it turned out to be a disaster like the Bay of Pigs.Thanks to the liberal media the whole thing was blamed on Nixon anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

Vietnam was unwinnable because we treated a Civil War into a Cold War

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Brains Instead of Brute Force

The Pacific War should have been as bloody as the Eastern Front. Instead, we suffered 1% of the fatalities that the Russians lost. The big difference was Big Mac.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

None of the United Nations forces, including our own, had the slightest chance of defeating the Chinese forces. Our forces were all mechanized, and could only advance using roads in North Korea. Chinese forces were not, therefor they traveled and fought in the mountains and hills with mostly infantry, and some limited small artillery. They traveled at night to avoid our aircraft. They had little regard for their own lives. They attacked in waves, with the 3rd and 4th wave not even having been issued guns and ammo. They picked that up from dead soldiers. The final wave was a blocking wave with machine guns, with orders to fire at any Chinese troops retreating without orders.

Actually we did in fact defeat the Chinese forces badly.

Exactly....the only thing stopping a clear cut victory in Korea was leftwing politicians and leftwing state dept. riddled with soviet spies. Truman who drank way too much whisky was too fearful of a confrontation with Russia and the famous quote

Lest we forget the statement by the none to clever Omar Bradley..............'"The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy" is General Omar Bradley's famous rebuke in his May 15, 1951 Congressional as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the idea of extending the Korean War into China, as proposed by General Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the U.N. ...that was just one example of the prevailing fallacious attitude of the weaklings in Washington who stabbed MacArthur in the back.

Follow the Money or You'll Be Led by the Nose

That's the selfish-puke Bircher view. But Truman, the product of a corrupt political machine, wanted to let Communism expand into a credible threat in order to have a specious reason to fund the Military-Industrial Complex.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Vietnam was unwinnable because LBJ used a fraudulent "crisis" in the first place and set up the rules so that we could win every battle and still lose the war.. Former college kids and typists and assorted a-holes in the CIA were dictating military strategy and policy while the Generals were forced to sit on the sidelines. Democrat administrations never did trust the Military and crooked regimes like the Kennedy brothers were well used to illegally having the CIA do their dirty work even when it turned out to be a disaster like the Bay of Pigs.Thanks to the liberal media the whole thing was blamed on Nixon anyway.

Epitaph on the Wall: PROUD TO DIE TAKING A RICHKID'S PLACE

The purpose of the Vietnam War was to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest sons of the working class. Mission accomplished

 

[Vandalshandle]

None of the United Nations forces, including our own, had the slightest chance of defeating the Chinese forces. Our forces were all mechanized, and could only advance using roads in North Korea. Chinese forces were not, therefor they traveled and fought in the mountains and hills with mostly infantry, and some limited small artillery. They traveled at night to avoid our aircraft. They had little regard for their own lives. They attacked in waves, with the 3rd and 4th wave not even having been issued guns and ammo. They picked that up from dead soldiers. The final wave was a blocking wave with machine guns, with orders to fire at any Chinese troops retreating without orders.

Actually we did in fact defeat the Chinese forces badly.

Exactly....the only thing stopping a clear cut victory in Korea was leftwing politicians and leftwing state dept. riddled with soviet spies. Truman who drank way too much whisky was too fearful of a confrontation with Russia and the famous quote

Lest we forget the statement by the none to clever Omar Bradley..............'"The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy" is General Omar Bradley's famous rebuke in his May 15, 1951 Congressional as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the idea of extending the Korean War into China, as proposed by General Douglas MacArthur, the commander of the U.N. ...that was just one example of the prevailing fallacious attitude of the weaklings in Washington who stabbed MacArthur in the back.

Follow the Money or You'll Be Led by the Nose

That's the selfish-puke Bircher view. But Truman, the product of a corrupt political machine, wanted to let Communism expand into a credible threat in order to have a specious reason to fund the Military-Industrial Complex.

You live in a very strange alternative universe, Street.....

Truman Committee - Wikipedia

"The Truman Committee proved to be one of the most successful investigative efforts ever mounted by the US government: an initial budget of $15,000 was expanded over three years to $360,000 to save an estimated $10–15 billion in military spending and thousands of lives of US servicemen"

Wiki

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Brains Instead of Brute Force

The Pacific War should have been as bloody as the Eastern Front. Instead, we suffered 1% of the fatalities that the Russians lost. The big difference was Big Mac.

I agree....he was incredibly brilliant, first in his class at West Point, outstandingly courageous and he should have lived in the White House. Yet, he was human and mistakenly believed the Chinese would not enter the Korean War....but nobody did...he cannot be faulted all that much for that mistake. His legacy is all the American Soldiers lives that were spared in the South Pacific due to his brilliant island hopping campaign.

 

[harmonica]

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

 

[harmonica]

you must not have understood my previous post
here:
we lost to the communist:
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
and---guess what?? the US is ok!
we didn't need to be there..it was a waste
we get involved in too much crap

Bay of Pigs--$$$$ lost
Nicaragua ???!!!

...first we are friends with and helping the Taliban/Afghanis --then we are at war over there
...first we are friends with Iran--then enemies with Iran and friends with Iraq helping Iraq fight Iran
then we go to war with Iraq !!!!!!!????!! WTF?

we need to stay out of a lot of these insignificant conflicts

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

again: most wars do not end it total victory
again:
it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives:

aid the democratic nation in repulsing an invasion by communist North Korea.

to enforce a United Nations resolution calling for an end to hostilities, and to stem the spread of communism in Asia.

“immediate cessation of hostilities” and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel.

and the biggie:::!!

President Truman announced to the nation and the world that America would intervene in the Korean conflict in order to prevent the conquest of an independent nation by communism

Truman orders U.S. forces to Korea - Jun 27, 1950 - HISTORY.com
mission accomplished....
Truman did not want to spread the conflict--he did not want to go into NK if China would get involved

“would be wrong—tragically wrong—for us to take the initiative in extending the war… Our aim is to avoid the spread of the conflict.

Truman relieves MacArthur of duties in Korea - Apr 11, 1951 - HISTORY.com
this is a win
China wins by keeping the UN/US out of NK
SK wins for staying independent
NK loses by not taking over NK

the US/etc kicked ASS in PG1....totally beat the Iraq forces--but by your definition it was not a win because it ended in a cease fire

Israel beat the Arabs ASS in the Six Day War...totally beat the Arab forces
Israel conquered and kept MORE land than they had before the war!!
--but by your definition Israel didn't win, because it ended in a cease fire
so, Israel didn't win the Six Day War???

 

[harmonica]

you must not have understood my previous post
here:
we lost to the communist:
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
and---guess what?? the US is ok!
we didn't need to be there..it was a waste
we get involved in too much crap

Bay of Pigs--$$$$ lost
Nicaragua ???!!!

...first we are friends with and helping the Taliban/Afghanis --then we are at war over there
...first we are friends with Iran--then enemies with Iran and friends with Iraq helping Iraq fight Iran
then we go to war with Iraq !!!!!!!????!! WTF?

we need to stay out of a lot of these insignificant conflicts

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

see post # 91 for Vietnam

 

[harmonica]

you must not have understood my previous post
here:
we lost to the communist:
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
and---guess what?? the US is ok!
we didn't need to be there..it was a waste
we get involved in too much crap

Bay of Pigs--$$$$ lost
Nicaragua ???!!!

...first we are friends with and helping the Taliban/Afghanis --then we are at war over there
...first we are friends with Iran--then enemies with Iran and friends with Iraq helping Iraq fight Iran
then we go to war with Iraq !!!!!!!????!! WTF?

we need to stay out of a lot of these insignificant conflicts

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

here--Six Day War cease fire
Cease-fires

 

[harmonica]

you must not have understood my previous post
here:
we lost to the communist:
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
Cuba
and---guess what?? the US is ok!
we didn't need to be there..it was a waste
we get involved in too much crap

Bay of Pigs--$$$$ lost
Nicaragua ???!!!

...first we are friends with and helping the Taliban/Afghanis --then we are at war over there
...first we are friends with Iran--then enemies with Iran and friends with Iraq helping Iraq fight Iran
then we go to war with Iraq !!!!!!!????!! WTF?

we need to stay out of a lot of these insignificant conflicts

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

but the politicians were part of the ''team''
just like the NV's politicians were part of the ''team''
no--you can't play hindsight 20-20
you play with the players you have
you can't call up minor ''leaguers'' during the game
loss

and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
we dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in WW2/etc

NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists

 

[Unkotare]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Brains Instead of Brute Force

The Pacific War should have been as bloody as the Eastern Front. Instead, we suffered 1% of the fatalities that the Russians lost. The big difference was Big Mac.

Russian fatalities were due to Stalin's stupidity.

 

[rightwinger]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Brains Instead of Brute Force

The Pacific War should have been as bloody as the Eastern Front. Instead, we suffered 1% of the fatalities that the Russians lost. The big difference was Big Mac.

I agree....he was incredibly brilliant, first in his class at West Point, outstandingly courageous and he should have lived in the White House. Yet, he was human and mistakenly believed the Chinese would not enter the Korean War....but nobody did...he cannot be faulted all that much for that mistake. His legacy is all the American Soldiers lives that were spared in the South Pacific due to his brilliant island hopping campaign.

MacArthur was a legend in his own mind. Without his self publicity generation, he never would have survived his failures in the Phillipines. Any other General would have been fired

MacArther, in spite of being informed of the attack on Pearl Harbor 20 hours earlier, was unprepared for the invasion of the Phillipines and had his planes on the ground

After losing the Phillipines, his insistence on “I shall return” cost countless lives in an unnecessary land war in Guinea and the Phillipines

While his attack on Inchon was brilliant, he ignored Truman’s direction to stay below the 38 th parallel. Truman warned an invasion of the north could lead to China’s entry into the war

In invading the north, MacArthur ignored reports that China had troops infiltrating the north and laughed at their fighting ability

At Chosin, his troops were trapped and barely escaped alive

After his defeat, his bluster and arrogance in advocating nukes and an invasion of China cost him his job


One of our WORST Generals

 

[rightwinger]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Brains Instead of Brute Force

The Pacific War should have been as bloody as the Eastern Front. Instead, we suffered 1% of the fatalities that the Russians lost. The big difference was Big Mac.

The big difference was the atomic bomb

 

[there4eyeM]

How is it that generals who do the obvious thing are thought of as brilliant?
Napoleon was brilliant, finding ways of defeating enemies any other general would have lost to.
Alexander and Hannibal were brilliant.
Schwartzkopf was not brilliant, merely efficient.
MacArthur blew it in the Philippines. Bypassing unneeded islands was merely logical. Real brilliance would have been to do the same thing with Japan itself. No need to invade at the cost of uncountable American lives. Inchon could have gone very wrong, and then there would have been no recourse but capitulation. Later, continuing into a potential enemy trap despite growing suspicion of significant concentration of troops was not brilliant. Expecting that the enemy would not do something he was capable of doing is not only not brilliant, it is the first thing a commander should not do.
Unfortunately, America has a poor track record of having qualified people in the right place at the right time to avoid catastrophe. Fortunately, it has often been blessed with the right people to persevere to a good finish. Truman was not ready to guide a post war America. Roosevelt did a poor job of preparing for his disappearance, though he knew he was going.

 

[rightwinger]

How is it that generals who do the obvious thing are thought of as brilliant?
Napoleon was brilliant, finding ways of defeating enemies any other general would have lost to.
Alexander and Hannibal were brilliant.
Schwartzkopf was not brilliant, merely efficient.
MacArthur blew it in the Philippines. Bypassing unneeded islands was merely logical. Real brilliance would have been to do the same thing with Japan itself. No need to invade at the cost of uncountable American lives. Inchon could have gone very wrong, and then there would have been no recourse but capitulation. Later, continuing into a potential enemy trap despite growing suspicion of significant concentration of troops was not brilliant. Expecting that the enemy would not do something he was capable of doing is not only not brilliant, it is the first thing a commander should not do.
Unfortunately, America has a poor track record of having qualified people in the right place at the right time to avoid catastrophe. Fortunately, it has often been blessed with the right people to persevere to a good finish. Truman was not ready to guide a post war America. Roosevelt did a poor job of preparing for his disappearance, though he knew he was going.

MacArthur underestimated the fighting ability of the Japanese then underestimated the fighting ability of the Chinese

His arrogance cost over 50,000 lives unnecessarily