Faceless Enemies of America

[Major König]

America has never lost a war, besides a disputed 'loss' in Vietnam. I've noticed that America demonises it's enemies through propoganda. A valuable wartime technique, but it seems that years after wars people have always rendered our enemies 'faceless'. So called in-depth books about WW2 calls our enemies 'The Germans' or 'The Japanese', and leaves it at that. No events of German or Japanese showing their courage, only GI's fighting 'heroically'. In Vietnam, we never saw the enemy fighting for their country, but only as the dirty 'Vietcong'. The guerillas of mixed nationalites we fight in the middle-east now are called 'terrorists', not even considering we are the ones imposing western will upon them. I myself am a person that wants to look at both sides of a conflict, even our enemies. What do you think?

[Pra]

I think we identify our enemies with particular 'demons' and as faceless swarms of potential provocateurs.

For example, we demonized the Germans, but we also demonized them as the followers of the Nazi dogma, and of Hitler himself; Hitler was hated, and the Nazis were portrayed as his evil legion. Similarly, we portray the terrorists with an enormity born both of a 'faceless' hatred and one related to the loathing disdain of Usamma bin Laden. Moreover, the terrorists demonize us in the same breath-calling America the 'great Satan'; they also portray George W. Bush as psuedo-'ultimate' evil because he is the leader of the percieved 'Satan.'

Throughout history, people pursue propoganda through dismissing and villifying the leaders of an enemy, as well as, demeaning the enemy as a 'faceless' doctrinaire collective capable of incorrigible hatred or cowardice.

[Kanaric]

Meh, all countries demonize their enemies. Just like the UK with "the Hun" etc.... just because were in the forefront peopel think its just us when that is simply a lie.

[Lord_sgmorris]

America has never lost a war, besides a disputed 'loss' in Vietnam. I've noticed that America demonises it's enemies through propoganda. A valuable wartime technique, but it seems that years after wars people have always rendered our enemies 'faceless'. So called in-depth books about WW2 calls our enemies 'The Germans' or 'The Japanese', and leaves it at that. No events of German or Japanese showing their courage, only GI's fighting 'heroically'. In Vietnam, we never saw the enemy fighting for their country, but only as the dirty 'Vietcong'. The guerillas of mixed nationalites we fight in the middle-east now are called 'terrorists', not even considering we are the ones imposing western will upon them. I myself am a person that wants to look at both sides of a conflict, even our enemies. What do you think?

we did not lose Vietnam
in fact we did not lose one Battle let along the war
we Left do to weak leadership that gave in to the anti war movement....DRUGIES

[Atheist Peace]

we did not lose Vietnam
in fact we did not lose one Battle let along the war
we Left do to weak leadership that gave in to the anti war movement....DRUGIES

America invaded a country, and withdrew, it lost. :wink:

[Lord_sgmorris]

America invaded a country, and withdrew, it lost. :wink:

? the us did not Invad? who told you that? the south invited the us and the UN in where do you get your facts from if i may ask ?

[Rapax]

? the us did not Invad? who told you that? the south invited the us and the UN in where do you get your facts from if i may ask ?

You're one funny guy. They "invited" the US. Sure, the american backed corrupt south vietnamese government invited the US and 500,000 friends to have a whooping party, too bad they left when it was time to clean up.
I'm sure you're clinging to this idea that the US didn't lose the war, but rather wasn't in the mood to fight anymore, but since they didn't manage to achieve their objective, it's considered a loss, whichever way you turn it.

[Pra]

You're one funny guy. They "invited" the US. Sure, the american backed corrupt south vietnamese government invited the US and 500,000 friends to have a whooping party, too bad they left when it was time to clean up.
I'm sure you're clinging to this idea that the US didn't lose the war, but rather wasn't in the mood to fight anymore, but since they didn't manage to achieve their objective, it's considered a loss, whichever way you turn it.

Technically the US hasn't lost a war, since it was called "the Vietnam Conflict." There was no formal declaration of War.

? the us did not Invad? who told you that? the south invited the us and the UN in where do you get your facts from if i may ask ?

If I remember correctly, American troops were, at first, sent in as 'consultants'; gradually troop numbers increased to and the conflict began. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution can be seen as the point, whereafter the major part of the had began; Congress had effectively givern Johnson, "take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

[Atheist Peace]

? the us did not Invad? who told you that? the south invited the us and the UN in where do you get your facts from if i may ask ?

:wink:


(When a country sends it's army into a place it does not control, and fights people there to take control of it, that is an invasion)

[Lord Tomyris]

:wink:


(When a country sends it's army into a place it does not control, and fights people there to take control of it, that is an invasion)

Not to nitpick old bean, but surely the Americans would be bumbling to take that route to Vietnam rather than crossing the Pacific? :laughing:

[Polemides]

:wink:


(When a country sends it's army into a place it does not control, and fights people there to take control of it, that is an invasion)

I guess the quality of history teachers is still as bad as when I was in school, because you don't seem to know much about the Vietnam war. The South Vietnamese government (note: it doesn't really matter how corrupt or how propped up by the U.S. they were) asked the United States to send advisors and military equipment to help them fight the North Vietnamese. Then you have the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which an American destroyer was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats while on a reconnaissance mission (which was most likey designed to provoke a response from the North). After that, Congress approved a resolution which allowed the U.S. to escalate it's involvement in the war.

There was no invasion of another country. Diem wanted the U.S. in South Vietnam, and no U.S. troops ever legally entered North Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos. Albeit there were black ops into said countries, and the North was bombed extensively, yet such actions do not constitute an invasion.

[nahirean]

:wink:


(When a country sends it's army into a place it does not control, and fights people there to take control of it, that is an invasion)

AP, that was hilarious.

[Lord_sgmorris]

:wink:


(When a country sends it's army into a place it does not control, and fights people there to take control of it, that is an invasion)

yeah your right cuse you could say the same about this


Some times you have to do the right thing even if the polls are not on your side

[Huscarl]

Terrorism is something you can't destory. Israel has spent over 50 years fighting terrorism with massive weapon/money support and while using tactics that would seem very brutal and they're still at square one. What the western world is doing now the terrorists aren't just going to put their hands up and surrender. Especially when the terrorist blend into our multicultural society.

[Lord_sgmorris]

Terrorism is something you can't destory. Israel has spent over 50 years fighting terrorism with massive weapon/money support and while using tactics that would seem very brutal and they're still at square one. What the western world is doing now the terrorists aren't just going to put their hands up and surrender. Especially when the terrorist blend into our multicultural society.

kinda agree but Israel cant win for the reason there Jewish. since the time of the roman empire just being Jewish in the minds of the Arab's and all Muslim's

[Kanaric]

kinda agree but Israel cant win for the reason there Jewish. since the time of the roman empire just being Jewish in the minds of the Arab's and all Muslim's

Can you do me a favor and start making sense. Are you american or foreign? Can't tell right now...

since the time of the roman empire just being Jewish in the minds of the Arab's and all Muslim's

That is your last sentence, tell me how its supposed to make sense? Also last I heard muslims weren't around in roman times, unless its a liberal conspiracy.

[invictus]

Well, if they pulled out and communism spread which was the point of going, didn't they technically lose since the south lost? -Leon

[danzig]

America has never lost a war, besides a disputed 'loss' in Vietnam. I've noticed that America demonises it's enemies through propoganda. A valuable wartime technique, but it seems that years after wars people have always rendered our enemies 'faceless'. So called in-depth books about WW2 calls our enemies 'The Germans' or 'The Japanese', and leaves it at that. No events of German or Japanese showing their courage, only GI's fighting 'heroically'. In Vietnam, we never saw the enemy fighting for their country, but only as the dirty 'Vietcong'. The guerillas of mixed nationalites we fight in the middle-east now are called 'terrorists', not even considering we are the ones imposing western will upon them. I myself am a person that wants to look at both sides of a conflict, even our enemies. What do you think?

Just an extension of calling the enemy 'barbarians' thru out the ancient world imo. Guess its simply easier to digest or justify the deaths on a massive level when dealing with a faceless enemy. The 80s was probably the highlight of this in the US from movies to books, from the insanely bad Rambo/Chuck Norris movies where the enemy was always some evil sinister villian with no other objective then to kill Americans. Its slowly but surely been changing from a culture point of view things are generally alot more 'grey' then black or white...mind you I say that from a moderate/majority point of view, the enemy to extremist (whether left or right) are always going to be nameless. Who knows maybe it helps them sleep at night thinking of the 'enemy' as a thing rather then a person or people. I will say however you cant realistically expect many positive (there are neutral however) displays of the Japanese or Germans with WW2. Vietnam IS a bit of an ego thing, hell it is with me as well we shouldnt have been there but the fact we were no way we should have 'lost' because basically we beat ourself or allowed ourself to be beaten. North Vietnam was never going to defeat the US in a military conflict but a bit of arrogance in that belief created a nice chink in our armor that was exploited rather nicely.

Not sure where you are getting the terrorist thing though, mostly the media here divides up the middle east into terrorist and insurgency in Iraq. There might be some who still try and blend the two but its pretty obvious there are 'two camps' in the middle east. Simple fact is regardless how justified or not a war is you cant sell a war to the masses with complicated concepts, it has to be simple them vs us, good vs evil, white vs black and there is nothing American about that its pretty much a mankind thing from the Crusades and beyond. Maybe someday mankind will outgrow it but I doubt it

Terrorism is something you can't destory. Israel has spent over 50 years fighting terrorism with massive weapon/money support and while using tactics that would seem very brutal and they're still at square one. What the western world is doing now the terrorists aren't just going to put their hands up and surrender. Especially when the terrorist blend into our multicultural society.

True you cant, terrorist generally wont give until they get what they want which unfortunately usually involves your total destruction but you CAN make it so painful to them that it makes them think twice. Israel has for the most part been successful in that, while they cant eliminate it completely they have done as well as can be expected against people who simply wont accept their right to exist. Just because you cant eliminate the problem doesnt mean you dont fight it though.

[Rowan11088]

America has never lost a war, besides a disputed 'loss' in Vietnam. I've noticed that America demonises it's enemies through propoganda. A valuable wartime technique, but it seems that years after wars people have always rendered our enemies 'faceless'. So called in-depth books about WW2 calls our enemies 'The Germans' or 'The Japanese', and leaves it at that. No events of German or Japanese showing their courage, only GI's fighting 'heroically'. In Vietnam, we never saw the enemy fighting for their country, but only as the dirty 'Vietcong'. The guerillas of mixed nationalites we fight in the middle-east now are called 'terrorists', not even considering we are the ones imposing western will upon them. I myself am a person that wants to look at both sides of a conflict, even our enemies. What do you think?

I think you're exaggerating somewhat. Yes, DURING a war we always demonize enemies, but that's a universal strategy, and we're often less extreme in it than most other countries (like WWII Japan for example). Afterwards we tend to examine those stereotypes and revise them. Read any respected account of WWII and you will find plenty of mentions of particular instances of bravery among German and Japanese soldiers. In fact, considering that that war was not that long ago, in historical terms we forgave and forgot unbelievably quickly, and no longer hold racial stereotypes to any large extent against the Germans or Japanese. The Chinese still hold a grudge against Japan, as does Korea (South and North actually). Iraqis tend to think the West is the devil, while we try to think of the Iraqi civilians as innocent.

In response to the Vietnam side-discussion, yes we did lose in Vietnam. We killed far more of the enemy than vice-versa, but that is tactical victory, and not strategic victory. Hannibal massacred the Romans at every turn in the Punic War, but lost ultimately because the Romans could recruit thousands upon thousands more soldiers to replace the fallen. Pure attrition rarely wins wars except through demoralization, which happened to us in Vietnam. They had an inferior fighting force, but were able to continually bring in new soldiers, while the U.S. military shot itself in the foot by not bombing North Vietnam or surrounding countries where they harbored the enemy (at least not until the last year of the war).

[Italian]

America has never lost a war, besides a disputed 'loss' in Vietnam. I've noticed that America demonises it's enemies through propoganda. A valuable wartime technique, but it seems that years after wars people have always rendered our enemies 'faceless'. So called in-depth books about WW2 calls our enemies 'The Germans' or 'The Japanese', and leaves it at that. No events of German or Japanese showing their courage, only GI's fighting 'heroically'. In Vietnam, we never saw the enemy fighting for their country, but only as the dirty 'Vietcong'. The guerillas of mixed nationalites we fight in the middle-east now are called 'terrorists', not even considering we are the ones imposing western will upon them. I myself am a person that wants to look at both sides of a conflict, even our enemies. What do you think?

Yes, thats the point of propaganda. To convince the masses that our country is right and theirs is the devil. Rowan has a good point though. The war wasn't to long ago and most people dont hold a grudge against any of the countries of WW2 and stories of 'the enemies' bravery are out there. We see mainly the Allied perspective because the allies won the war and the winners get to write history. Had things been turned around we'd be learning about the wicked british not warning the its people of the bombing at Coventry or the allied bombardment of Danzig.

In response to the Vietnam side-discussion, yes we did lose in Vietnam. We killed far more of the enemy than vice-versa, but that is tactical victory, and not strategic victory. Hannibal massacred the Romans at every turn in the Punic War, but lost ultimately because the Romans could recruit thousands upon thousands more soldiers to replace the fallen. Pure attrition rarely wins wars except through demoralization, which happened to us in Vietnam. They had an inferior fighting force, but were able to continually bring in new soldiers, while the U.S. military shot itself in the foot by not bombing North Vietnam or surrounding countries where they harbored the enemy (at least not until the last year of the war).

This depends on what you consider the goal of vietnam was. Americans (now) say the goal was to stop the spread of communism. looking at vietnam and seeing that it became communist makes it appear that the US lost. However, on a global scale had the US never been in vietnam all of southeast asia would most likely be communist. In the end the US stunted the growth of communism by pumping money into thailand and other south asian countries. The same way they did in Itay and much of the rest of western europe after WW2. Without the US the map would look very different today. Whether that is a good or bad thing is for you to decide.