Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Loben The 2nd]

you seem to take it personally.

You act like you wouldn'tve.

what exactly were you accused of?

[Highever]

I explained how. Or we could have just intervened in 75. There were ways it could be won.
Again it was tanks, not rebels that toppled the government, and we were plenty capable of killing tanks.

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

Hell the latter was very nearly accomplished from their own failure of the Tet offensive.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

Hell the latter was very nearly accomplished from their own failure of the Tet offensive.

They made up their losses very very quickly.

[Grenartia]

Well, my point is more that the problems he is complaining about aren't caused by social progress, and, in fact, are solved by it (clean environments being a socially-progressive value).

I don't know about that. There was obviously something that happened rapidly in the latter part of the sixties/early seventies that was too sudden to be totally attributable to lead. Although you're right that cleaning it up is probably responsible for the greater part of the 90's-today drop in crime rates.

I'm absolutely confident that social progress is not the unaccounted for factor.

[Novus America]

I explained how. Or we could have just intervened in 75. There were ways it could be won.
Again it was tanks, not rebels that toppled the government, and we were plenty capable of killing tanks.

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

Essentially though again only invading as far as the Mu Gia Pass would be necessary or advisable.

[Nakena]

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

Questarian New Yorkshire now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920

[Diopolis]

I don't know about that. There was obviously something that happened rapidly in the latter part of the sixties/early seventies that was too sudden to be totally attributable to lead. Although you're right that cleaning it up is probably responsible for the greater part of the 90's-today drop in crime rates.

I'm absolutely confident that social progress is not the unaccounted for factor.

The unaccounted for factors are probably divorce and desegregation. Not abortion, as he's likely to claim.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

They should stop bombing school children. I dont want to give arms to a nation that violates the Geneva Conventions

LOL

You are the school child bombers, jesus fucking christ, if you could measure the density of hypocrisy you would be iridium

[Highever]

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

The Tet offensive was an absolute failure and much of the VIet Cong's and even the NVA's military capacity was devastated. Hell most battles against the NVA and Viet Cong ended in military victories for the US. So, no the US did not at all get fucked militarily. To refute this and point this out is not some sort of apologist wet dream.

[Diopolis]

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

The Tet offensive was an absolute failure and much of the VIet Cong's and even the NVA's military capacity was devastated. Hell most battles against the NVA and Viet Cong ended in military victories for the US. So, no the US did not at all get fucked militarily. To refute this and point this out is not some sort of apologist wet dream.

To point out that the US lost because of a lack of political will due to bolsheviks, cowards, and other traitors in our own ranks is also not an apologist wet dream.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

The Tet offensive was an absolute failure and much of the VIet Cong's and even the NVA's military capacity was devastated. Hell most battles against the NVA and Viet Cong ended in military victories for the US. So, no the US did not at all get fucked militarily. To refute this and point this out is not some sort of apologist wet dream.

If you won every battle why did your troops retreat with their tails behind their legs from Vietnam?

The Tet Offensive was a giant success for Vietnam. Not by what they intended to achieve, but by what actually happened. If you think otherwise you have a bizarre and ahistoric view of the Vietnam war.

[Grenartia]

Well, my point is more that the problems he is complaining about aren't caused by social progress, and, in fact, are solved by it (clean environments being a socially-progressive value).

Although by the 50s they already imagined nuclear power would soon offer us a clean future.
Sadly anti-nuclear “environmentalists” in the 70s ruined the environment.

When the environmental movement when anti nuclear it killed the environment sadly.

Oh, I definitely agree. And by that point, execs at places like Exxon already knew that climate change was inevitable. Its probable that big oil funneled money discreetly into anti-nuclear activist orgs (probably without their knowing precisely who or where the money ultimately came from) to kill nuclear. After all, without nuclear, where does the public get their power demands fulfilled when renewables simply won't cut it? Fossil fuels, of course.

Which isn't to say that nuclear power isn't without fault, especially in the 50s. Most designs of that era weren't about "clean energy" as much as they were about providing fissionables for nuclear weapons.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The Tet offensive was an absolute failure and much of the VIet Cong's and even the NVA's military capacity was devastated. Hell most battles against the NVA and Viet Cong ended in military victories for the US. So, no the US did not at all get fucked militarily. To refute this and point this out is not some sort of apologist wet dream.

To point out that the US lost because of a lack of political will due to bolsheviks, cowards, and other traitors in our own ranks is also not an apologist wet dream.

The US was involved in Vietnam because of a lack of political will.

[Novus America]

We could easily have invaded north Vietnam and destroyed their conventional military utterly. But we didn't.

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

Not really. An invasion of North Vietnam up to the Mu Gia Pass in 1965 would have been politically viable. The war started out popular. Tet would have never happened.

Yes we lost. But why we lost matters. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Just oh we lost forget about it is not a good route to take.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The RWDT is dead, all Hail the RWDT!.

Touching to Poll's topic, i don't know much what's going on Brazil and Bolsonaro. Despite it seems he has went on the offensive on crime. I heard Brazilian right-wingers dislike him (i would admit this reminds me to Trump). The only reason i remember is in his policy on Gun Laws, the Brazilian people still has it bad at getting a gun, and they can only arm themselves with those strange and expensive calibers that only some specific pistols or rifles use (not 9mm, .45 or 7,62mm) and it seems they cannot get guns for self-defense because of corrupt bureaucracy. I say again i don't know what's going on despite bordering them.

Are you a libertarian?

[Diopolis]

To point out that the US lost because of a lack of political will due to bolsheviks, cowards, and other traitors in our own ranks is also not an apologist wet dream.

The US was involved in Vietnam because of a lack of political will.

If we'd had a spine, we would've put regular army troops on the ground in Cuba after the revolution. If we'd had a spine, we would've kept the judeo-bolshevik asiatic hordes out of Hungary in '56. If we'd had a spine, we'd have let McArthur win the war against China and Korea.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The US had very few experts on Vietnam, because it was unable to execute effective foreign policy, and what experts did exist were totally sidelined. Its political will was so weak it did automatically what the French asked them to do, and its political initiative so powerless it allowed itself to be directed by events, rather than directing events. 'If our country hadn't tonnes of commies we would have nuked the Vietnamese' was never going to happen, not in any universe, which is why it's a retarded wet dream - if the US had been serious about Vietnam its policy would have been different in 1950, not in 1965.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The US was involved in Vietnam because of a lack of political will.

If we'd had a spine, we would've put regular army troops on the ground in Cuba after the revolution. If we'd had a spine, we would've kept the judeo-bolshevik asiatic hordes out of Hungary in '56. If we'd had a spine, we'd have let McArthur win the war against China and Korea.

That's really not how it works dude lol

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

If it was easy you would have done it.

Just like it would have been easy for the USSR to squash Pakistan in 1982 and close the supply routes to the taliban. But they didn't. Not because it would have been easy, but because it was impossible.

'We could have invaded them in 1965' is an apologist wet dream. The US got fucked in Vietnam. You lost. Get over it.

Not really. An invasion of North Vietnam up to the Mu Gia Pass in 1965 would have been politically viable. The war started out popular. Tet would have never happened.

Yes we lost. But why we lost matters. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Just oh we lost forget about it is not a good route to take.

You lost because you tried to occupy a country which did not want to be occupied. That's what you should learn from.

[Highever]

The Tet offensive was an absolute failure and much of the VIet Cong's and even the NVA's military capacity was devastated. Hell most battles against the NVA and Viet Cong ended in military victories for the US. So, no the US did not at all get fucked militarily. To refute this and point this out is not some sort of apologist wet dream.

If you won every battle why did your troops retreat with their tails behind their legs from Vietnam?

The Tet Offensive was a giant success for Vietnam. Not by what they intended to achieve, but by what actually happened. If you think otherwise you have a bizarre and ahistoric view of the Vietnam war.

They were pulled out due to the massive public opinion being against involvement in the first place, and the way the attack was reported made the sentiment even worse. Morale was low and the will to commit was completely gone, thus the pulling out of the war.

The Offensive was considered a total disaster even by the NVA and Viet Cong. The only bizarre and ahistoric view here is your own in trying to portray the Tet offensive as a military success.

[Novus America]

The Tet offensive was an absolute failure and much of the VIet Cong's and even the NVA's military capacity was devastated. Hell most battles against the NVA and Viet Cong ended in military victories for the US. So, no the US did not at all get fucked militarily. To refute this and point this out is not some sort of apologist wet dream.

If you won every battle why did your troops retreat with their tails behind their legs from Vietnam?

The Tet Offensive was a giant success for Vietnam. Not by what they intended to achieve, but by what actually happened. If you think otherwise you have a bizarre and ahistoric view of the Vietnam war.

Because our politicians pulled them out.
It was not the military that decided to retreat.

Yes the Tet Offensive was a political victory for North Vietnam but a military defeat for them. Politicians, not the military lost the war.

[Nakena]

The US had very few experts on Vietnam, because it was unable to execute effective foreign policy, and what experts did exist were totally sidelined. Its political will was so weak it did automatically what the French asked them to do, and its political initiative so powerless it allowed itself to be directed by events, rather than directing events. 'If our country hadn't tonnes of commies we would have nuked the Vietnamese' was never going to happen, not in any universe, which is why it's a retarded wet dream - if the US had been serious about Vietnam its policy would have been different in 1950, not in 1965.

Thats what I said earlier in this thread. By the 60s it was already too late. US should have helped France in early 1950s as they were also in Korea.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

The Offensive was considered a total disaster even by the NVA and Viet Cong. The only bizarre and ahistoric view here is your own in trying to portray the Tet offensive as a military success.

as if you think anyone in vietnam thought in 1969 that 1968 offensive was a disaster LOOOOOOOOL

[Diopolis]

If the US had ever been willing to take responsibility for its own mistakes, it would've dropped the bomb on Moscow in 1945.