To pretend war and battles are the same

shame

vietnam wasn't a war, you fool

also that

we lost no battles; we just decided it wasn't worth the effort and came home

Imagine placing value on your citizen's lives

yall turned china into a bat eating disease factory with the opium wars

Vietnam - America loses 40000 troops

(NOT A WAR GUYS)

(DIDNT LOSE A WAR DONT WORRY)

Have you READ the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT?

that's the threshold, and be thankful america finally said it

we conquered Vietnam

then left

and then the few remaining rebels took it back

because the side we were defending was so damn incompetent

Considering the way Vietnam is operating today, may as well have been a victory

surprise surprise, after you conquer a place, the inhabitants don't magically like you

the red devil still lost the ULTIMATE war

```Unless specifically directed otherwise, US air defense forces are not authorized to attack other hostile forces or installations unless attacked first, and then only to extent necessary for self-defense.```

LUL

FROM: JCS
TO: CINCPAC
JCS 9117

Subj: Definitive Rules of Engagement Applying to Laos

Refs: a. JCS 7947, DTG 151318Z Aug; b. Vientiane 380 to State 29 Aug (NOTAL); and c. CINCPAC to JCS, DTG 041 100Z Aug

1. Ref a remains in effect. This message supplements and provides specific guidance for friendly forces and installations-(See subpara 2c, ref a.)

2. Rules of Engagement for US air defense forces operating in Southeast Asia, as agreed to by Royal Laos Government (RLG), are:

a. US air defense forces are authorized to engage and destroy hostile aircraft in Laos. Hot pursuit may be conducted as necessary and feasible over Thailand and South Vietnam.
b. No pursuit is authorized at this time into North Vietnam or Cambodia except when actually engaged in air combat. No pursuit is authorized into Communist China.
c. Unless specifically directed otherwise, US air defense forces are not authorized to attack other hostile forces or installations unless attacked first, and then only to extent necessary for self-defense.

yes we know this

3. Definitions

a. Hostile aircraft--A hostile aircraft is defined as one which is:

(1) Visually identified, or designated by the US Director of a Joint Operations Center or his authorized US representatives, as a communist bloc or Cambodian aircraft overflying Laos territory, and
(2) Observed in one of the following acts:

(a) Attacking US or friendly ground forces or installations;
(b) Attacking US or friendly aircraft (including Air America or Bird and Son aircraft);
(c) Laying mines within friendly territorial waters;
(d) Attacking US or friendly vessels;
(e) Releasing parachutes or gliders over friendly sovereign territory when obviously not in distress; or
(f) Acting or behaving in a manner which indicates within reasonable certainty that air attack on US or friendly forces, installations, and aircraft (including Air America and Bird and Son aircraft) is intended.

4. These rules are not intended, in any manner, to infringe upon the traditional responsibility of a military commander

Shut the fuck up, mutt

Blow me, Eurofag

Before we start posting pictures of Iraqi war soldiers getting shot through a sniper scope

Theres a lot of videos ya know

imagine if Americans could have actually fought without their hands tided behind their backs?

go right ahead, i know where you live

Died for the jew

And yet Americans still won every battle, really makes ya think hmmmmmm

Ja, Ja.. Lech mich am Arsche

those rules CLEARLY show it was not a 'war'

Kazza is *incredibly* salty rn

vietnam, like Iraq was an 'occupation'

🇺🇸

ofc, other countries have an inferiority complex

funny, didn't the UK withdraw...

FROM EVERYWHERE?!