# Vietnam War was unwinnable



## harmonica

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.


----------



## Mindful

The sentence "it was like fighting a ghost in the forest" stays in my mind.


----------



## JGalt

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.


----------



## JoeB131

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.



You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?  

I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.  

Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.


----------



## JGalt

JoeB131 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
Click to expand...


OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> .we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land



Reality- What did "Winning" look like in Vietnam? 

The problem is, for the Vietnamese, we were just the third of multiple invaders they were fighting off. France, Japan and the uS saw it about their international influence... the Vietnamese just wanted to be left alone to their own devices in their own country.  

The problem with the people we supported is that they were French Educated, in some cases Catholic when the majority of Vietnam was Buddhist, and were seen as collaborators, not national leaders.  Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.


----------



## sparky

JoeB131 said:


> Reality- What did "Winning" look like in Vietnam?


what's it looked like since?

~S~


----------



## Bleipriester

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.


Now your stuff is made in communist China.


----------



## Bleipriester

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Yeah that regime had little public support, I guess.


----------



## gipper

They never intended to win. They just wanted to get rich.


----------



## JGalt

Bleipriester said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> Now your stuff is made in communist China.
Click to expand...


I see that. I  bought one of these newer-made Ontario Air Force survival knives yesterday. Ontario made these from WW2 to the Gulf War and they're pretty decent knives. Walmart marked them down from $40 to $19.

The knife is well-made but the leather sheath was made in China, and is pretty crappy, compared to the original US military issue sheaths. The reinforcement on the sheath is plastic now instead of metal


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.


Shows we should have just left them alone


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
Click to expand...

We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII


----------



## JGalt

rightwinger said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
Click to expand...


Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.
Click to expand...


It cost millions of Vietnamese lives and 60,000 Americans to get what we could have gotten for nothing


----------



## Frannie

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


What is your point


----------



## JGalt

rightwinger said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It cost millions of Vietnamese lives and 60,000 Americans to get what we could have gotten for nothing
Click to expand...


It's far more complex than that.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

*Marxism is slavery and oppression.
The Vietcong murdered and oppressed millions.
Troglocrats are dumb.*


----------



## Jets

More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It cost millions of Vietnamese lives and 60,000 Americans to get what we could have gotten for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's far more complex than that.
Click to expand...


Not complex when you consider....Was is worth it?


----------



## rightwinger

Jets said:


> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.


We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.


..isn't that bad for the US? same with SKorea? since we are competing with them now?


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
> 
> 
> 
> We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
Click to expand...

..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
> 
> 
> 
> We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
Click to expand...


We promised elections within three years
We changed our minds when it was obvious Ho Chi Minh would win


----------



## K9Buck

JoeB131 said:


> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?



Your leftist comrades won.  Surely you're pleased about that outcome.  After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?


----------



## K9Buck

Bleipriester said:


> Now your stuff is made in communist China.



That's true.  The free world shouldn't trade with them, aside from selling them food for humanitarian purposes.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your leftist comrades won.  Surely you're pleased about that outcome.  After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?
Click to expand...

Nobody was pleased

Millions died needlessly


----------



## K9Buck

The Vietnam War was American's biggest foreign-policy mistake of the 20th century.  The cost to our country in terms of blood and treasure was/is _staggering_.  

The mindset of the time was the "Domino" theory and that one nation after another would tumble and turn into a communist state.  

What the American brain trust didn't realize is that the Vietnamese were very nationalist and could have easily aligned with us had we told the French to get out.  You may recall that China and Vietnam went to war for a short time in 1979, and the Chinese got their asses kicked "teaching Vietnam a lesson", or so they said.  

It seems that the South Vietnamese people lacked the will to fight their northern brothers.  I don't blame them.


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> Nobody was pleased.  Millions died needlessly



But you have to be happy that they didn't turn out like South Korea did, correct?


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody was pleased.  Millions died needlessly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have to be happy that they didn't turn out like South Korea did, correct?
Click to expand...

Not our fight


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> Not our fight



This is you.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not our fight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is you.
Click to expand...


Our President would have gladly fought but he had bone spurs
He knew more than the Generals


----------



## Bleipriester

K9Buck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now your stuff is made in communist China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true.  The free world shouldn't trade with them, aside from selling them food for humanitarian purposes.
Click to expand...

I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.


----------



## K9Buck

Bleipriester said:


> I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.



They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> Our President would have gladly fought but he had bone spurs
> He knew more than the Generals



I don't blame anyone for doing whatever they had to do to avoid that deathtrap.  

You're just happy that Vietnam didn't turn out like South Korea, seeing as how you despise free-market capitalism.


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our President would have gladly fought but he had bone spurs
> He knew more than the Generals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame anyone for doing whatever they had to do to avoid that deathtrap.
> 
> You're just happy that Vietnam didn't turn out like South Korea, seeing as how you despise free-market capitalism.
Click to expand...

South Korea fought for its sovereignty
South Vietnam was a corrupt, inept government soaking the US for aid and protection


----------



## K9Buck

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our President would have gladly fought but he had bone spurs
> He knew more than the Generals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame anyone for doing whatever they had to do to avoid that deathtrap.
> 
> You're just happy that Vietnam didn't turn out like South Korea, seeing as how you despise free-market capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Korea fought for its sovereignty
> South Vietnam was a corrupt, inept government soaking the US for aid and protection
Click to expand...


You keep dodging.  Be honest. You wish that South Korea was under a left-wing totalitarian regime.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.


----------



## Desperado

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.


That alone was worth the 40,000 American lives that were lost because of this insane war.


----------



## Desperado

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
Click to expand...

You sound a lot like Baghdad Bob the way you are spinning the story


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
Click to expand...

we did not win -plain and simple 
...the ARVN were CRAP---you could've given them all kind of ammo and it would not have made a difference
.....read about the Ap Bac battle for an example--the VC kicked their asses even though the ARVN had all the advantages 
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
hahahahhahahaha
....the NVA were in Nam in 1965
AND we did lose the political/insurgency/etc war 
here read post # 12..Morley Safer knew in *1965* we could win the military battles, but NOT the political/insurgency/etc 
Vietnam War was unwinnable


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
Click to expand...

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves


----------



## Pilot1

We won every significant military engagement in Vietnam.  They lost millions of soldiers to our 50K.  Cronkite lost us the war POLITICALLY saying the U.S. couldn't win after Tet, which we ALSO WON.  

So the Commie, biased, lying MEDIA again cost us even back then.  Oh, and Russia, Russia, Russia was also a lie.  So history repeats itself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Desperado said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound a lot like Baghdad Bob the way you are spinning the story
Click to expand...

Those are FACTS dumbass. If we had not cut South Vietnam off from all military supplies and honored out agreement with them the North Never would have invaded. Look it up numb nuts. No spin at all after TeT there was no south Vietnamese insurgency we killed them all. After that all there were were North Vietnamese Regulars pretending to be insurgents Read Ho Chi Min some time they were simply AMAZED our press turned an out right victory into a defeat after TeT.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
Click to expand...

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.


----------



## rightwinger

Pilot1 said:


> We won every significant military engagement in Vietnam.  They lost millions of soldiers to our 50K.  Cronkite lost us the war POLITICALLY saying the U.S. couldn't win after Tet, which we ALSO WON.
> 
> So the Commie, biased, lying MEDIA again cost us even back then.  Oh, and Russia, Russia, Russia was also a lie.  So history repeats itself.


We killed millions and still could not win

Because they were willing to lose a million to regain their country
We were unwilling to lose 60,000 to support a corrupt, inept ally


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
Click to expand...


We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
Click to expand...

Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
Click to expand...

South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side

They still managed to lose


----------



## rightwinger

More revisionist history...

If only we had given S Vietnam more support, they could have WON


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side
> 
> They still managed to lose
Click to expand...

I guess you can  not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> More revisionist history...
> 
> If only we had given S Vietnam more support, they could have WON


READ the history your self DUMB ASS.


----------



## Bleipriester

K9Buck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.
Click to expand...

The problem is the capitalist mindset. It is not we, it is them (the managers), who don´t give a shit about the country and the company. They care about the bonuses they get when thy fire another American or European. Our system is our enemy, it its own enemy. Searching for cheap labor, the result is a new superpower in the making.
Look, the Chinese have a new "white book", they have no imperialist ambitions, and they don´t have to. But don´t treat on them, that might fire back soon enough. The US can be lucky under Trump that China is currently struggling to provide enough food for its population. We have to accept the new situation, it is easier for us Europeans, granted. It means we have to go back to local markets and invest in domestic science to maintain independence from Chinese suppliers. The best thing is when Chinese suppliers supply China and western suppliers supply us.


----------



## K9Buck

Bleipriester said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is the capitalist mindset. It is not we, it is them (the managers), who don´t give a shit about the country and the company. They care about the bonuses they get when thy fire another American or European. Our system is our enemy, it its own enemy. Searching for cheap labor, the result is a new superpower in the making.
> Look, the Chinese have a new "white book", they have no imperialist ambitions, and they don´t have to. But don´t treat on them, that might fire back soon enough. The US can be lucky under Trump that China is currently struggling to provide enough food for its population. We have to accept the new situation, it is easier for us Europeans, granted. It means we have to go back to local markets and invest in domestic science to maintain Independence from Chinese suppliers. The best thing is when Chinese suppliers supply China and western suppliers supply us.
Click to expand...


By law, western companies should be forbidden to trade with China and others.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> 
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side
> 
> They still managed to lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can  not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.
Click to expand...

We were allowed to withdraw our troops without being attacked
In no way does that infer victory


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> More revisionist history...
> 
> If only we had given S Vietnam more support, they could have WON
> 
> 
> 
> READ the history your self DUMB ASS.
Click to expand...

S Vietnam was incapable of defeating northern troops
They demonstrated that fact for a decade


----------



## Bleipriester

K9Buck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is the capitalist mindset. It is not we, it is them (the managers), who don´t give a shit about the country and the company. They care about the bonuses they get when thy fire another American or European. Our system is our enemy, it its own enemy. Searching for cheap labor, the result is a new superpower in the making.
> Look, the Chinese have a new "white book", they have no imperialist ambitions, and they don´t have to. But don´t treat on them, that might fire back soon enough. The US can be lucky under Trump that China is currently struggling to provide enough food for its population. We have to accept the new situation, it is easier for us Europeans, granted. It means we have to go back to local markets and invest in domestic science to maintain Independence from Chinese suppliers. The best thing is when Chinese suppliers supply China and western suppliers supply us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By law, western companies should be forbidden to trade with China and others.
Click to expand...

This strategy of exclusion will only create an even larger opponent. There should be clear agreements on government level, how to treat each other.


----------



## Manonthestreet

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Wrong it was won when ya left.VC were wiped out. .


----------



## K9Buck

Bleipriester said:


> This strategy of exclusion will only create an even larger opponent.



So doing business with the Chinese and helping them to get rich is a better strategy?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side
> 
> They still managed to lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can  not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were allowed to withdraw our troops without being attacked
> In no way does that infer victory
Click to expand...

LOL GOD you are AMAZINGLY IGNORANT of basic historical facts.


----------



## whitehall

LBJ, who managed to get American Troops to Vietnam with a fake crisis, had the full support of the democrat party that dominated politics at the time. He set the rules so that the U.S. could win every battle and still lose the war. Just when LBJ achieved the unthinkable on the backs of Marines after the Tet offensive and the V.C. were whipped he gave up. Instead of claiming victory and forcing the VC into capitulation and just when the U.S. needed leadership, LBJ gave up on public T.V. and gave Giap crucial capital for Chinese support and recruitment. Democrats managed to blame the whole thing on Nixon.


----------



## Bleipriester

K9Buck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> This strategy of exclusion will only create an even larger opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So doing business with the Chinese and helping them to get rich is a better strategy?
Click to expand...

Do we really need a strategy? If yes, it should be a strategy that will not make them angry. They hold in hands a large part of western know how. Western companies are in joint ventures with Chinese companies, they cannot have own places (with few exceptions) and there is a tech transfer to the Chinese joint venture partner. They are already the largest economy and will be, based on their numbers, the absolute Number 1. Aggressive behavior will not pay off. The day will come and they will decide who takes part in trade. Get used to that fact.


----------



## K9Buck

Bleipriester said:


> ...it should be a strategy that will not make them angry.



You mean like how France and England didn't want to make Hitler angry?


----------



## Bleipriester

K9Buck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...it should be a strategy that will not make them angry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how France and England didn't want to make Hitler angry?
Click to expand...

We don´t need to appease them. Let them have their islands, who cares. They are not coming for us as Hitler wasn´t coming for them. Plus we can´t do anything about that, anyway.
The only way to maintain an advantage is to call our companies home and let them only produce in China what they sell in China without anymore tech transfer. If China is not in agreement, we can still use your plan, right?
As for America, MAGA can only take place in the US, not in China, Venezuela or anywhere else.


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .



No I disagree.   Completely.   There is no evidence that the war was un-winnable.   Every single time.... EVERY TIME... that Viet-Cong troops fought directly with US troops... they were slaughtered.     Every single time, that our troops, confronted their troops directly, we slaughtered them.   Completely and utterly, destroyed them.

In fact the Tet offensive, which the left-wingers usually point to as the proof we were not winning against the North Vietnamese, actually proved the opposite.  If you look at where they attacked, they specifically targeted places that they believed had no American military presence.  They targeted locations defended by the South Vietnamese military, because they knew the Americans would slaughter them.

Further we know that the North Vietnamese actively asked Stalin if they could end hostilities.  Stalin wanted them to keep fighting, because he knew the immoral godless left in the US was pushing Stalin's propaganda in the war to demoralize the US military and public.  Which is exactly what happened, and is still happening to this day.

If the US military had been unleashed to go and attack the north, we would have easily over run the north Vietnamese and wiped out the entire Vietcong in one swoop.   But the evil immoral left held our military back, kept them walking around in circles which did nothing but provide easy targets for the Vietcong, which is exactly what the left wanted.  More dead troops.  Just like like they marched through new york chanting 'we want dead cops' they were chanted 'baby killers' to our troops.

No, we absolutely could have won.  No question about it.   No doubt in my mind.  There was not one significant attack by the North Vietnamese, that our military did not wipe the floor with.  The only reason we did not win, is because the evil America hating left-wing, prevented them.

The left-wing loves having people killed.... and they did so.

The Vietnamese Boat People - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training

Thousands on thousands of Vietnamese were killed by the Vietcong after the the left-wing fininshed their shameful act by refusing to give support to the South Vietnamese when the North backed by Stalin, started rolling tanks into the south.

May G-d bless every Vietnamese saved in the US, and may G-d's wrath consume and destroy those evil bastards that supported the death of our troops, and the death of the south Vietnamese people, by their support for Stalin's propaganda and anti-US policies that led to those deaths.


----------



## EduardBernstein

Communists won so many wars. It is because communists are more intelligent than Nazis.


----------



## Camp

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I disagree.   Completely.   There is no evidence that the war was un-winnable.   Every single time.... EVERY TIME... that Viet-Cong troops fought directly with US troops... they were slaughtered.     Every single time, that our troops, confronted their troops directly, we slaughtered them.   Completely and utterly, destroyed them.
> 
> In fact the Tet offensive, which the left-wingers usually point to as the proof we were not winning against the North Vietnamese, actually proved the opposite.  If you look at where they attacked, they specifically targeted places that they believed had no American military presence.  They targeted locations defended by the South Vietnamese military, because they knew the Americans would slaughter them.
> 
> Further we know that the North Vietnamese actively asked Stalin if they could end hostilities.  Stalin wanted them to keep fighting, because he knew the immoral godless left in the US was pushing Stalin's propaganda in the war to demoralize the US military and public.  Which is exactly what happened, and is still happening to this day.
> 
> If the US military had been unleashed to go and attack the north, we would have easily over run the north Vietnamese and wiped out the entire Vietcong in one swoop.   But the evil immoral left held our military back, kept them walking around in circles which did nothing but provide easy targets for the Vietcong, which is exactly what the left wanted.  More dead troops.  Just like like they marched through new york chanting 'we want dead cops' they were chanted 'baby killers' to our troops.
> 
> No, we absolutely could have won.  No question about it.   No doubt in my mind.  There was not one significant attack by the North Vietnamese, that our military did not wipe the floor with.  The only reason we did not win, is because the evil America hating left-wing, prevented them.
> 
> The left-wing loves having people killed.... and they did so.
> 
> The Vietnamese Boat People - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training
> 
> Thousands on thousands of Vietnamese were killed by the Vietcong after the the left-wing fininshed their shameful act by refusing to give support to the South Vietnamese when the North backed by Stalin, started rolling tanks into the south.
> 
> May G-d bless every Vietnamese saved in the US, and may G-d's wrath consume and destroy those evil bastards that supported the death of our troops, and the death of the south Vietnamese people, by their support for Stalin's propaganda and anti-US policies that led to those deaths.
Click to expand...

Your post indicates you really have a bunch of misinformation for a basis of your ideas. Actually, your post is beyond dopey and just not credible.  The most obvious goofy things in your posts are your references to Stalin.


----------



## westwall

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .






No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
Click to expand...




> isn't worth attempting


 = unwinnable


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I disagree.   Completely.   There is no evidence that the war was un-winnable.   Every single time.... EVERY TIME... that Viet-Cong troops fought directly with US troops... they were slaughtered.     Every single time, that our troops, confronted their troops directly, we slaughtered them.   Completely and utterly, destroyed them.
> 
> In fact the Tet offensive, which the left-wingers usually point to as the proof we were not winning against the North Vietnamese, actually proved the opposite.  If you look at where they attacked, they specifically targeted places that they believed had no American military presence.  They targeted locations defended by the South Vietnamese military, because they knew the Americans would slaughter them.
> 
> Further we know that the North Vietnamese actively asked Stalin if they could end hostilities.  Stalin wanted them to keep fighting, because he knew the immoral godless left in the US was pushing Stalin's propaganda in the war to demoralize the US military and public.  Which is exactly what happened, and is still happening to this day.
> 
> If the US military had been unleashed to go and attack the north, we would have easily over run the north Vietnamese and wiped out the entire Vietcong in one swoop.   But the evil immoral left held our military back, kept them walking around in circles which did nothing but provide easy targets for the Vietcong, which is exactly what the left wanted.  More dead troops.  Just like like they marched through new york chanting 'we want dead cops' they were chanted 'baby killers' to our troops.
> 
> No, we absolutely could have won.  No question about it.   No doubt in my mind.  There was not one significant attack by the North Vietnamese, that our military did not wipe the floor with.  The only reason we did not win, is because the evil America hating left-wing, prevented them.
> 
> The left-wing loves having people killed.... and they did so.
> 
> The Vietnamese Boat People - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training
> 
> Thousands on thousands of Vietnamese were killed by the Vietcong after the the left-wing fininshed their shameful act by refusing to give support to the South Vietnamese when the North backed by Stalin, started rolling tanks into the south.
> 
> May G-d bless every Vietnamese saved in the US, and may G-d's wrath consume and destroy those evil bastards that supported the death of our troops, and the death of the south Vietnamese people, by their support for Stalin's propaganda and anti-US policies that led to those deaths.
Click to expand...

hahahahah
so we attack in the North--and the NVA pick and choose when to fight
then what would we do??..give me some phases/strategy/etc......how would we win?


----------



## harmonica

Manonthestreet said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong it was won when ya left.VC were wiped out. .
Click to expand...

'''when ya left'''----???? what does this mean
so the VC were wiped out, --we still lost.....
??? please explain more details


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
Click to expand...

....the ARVN got their asses whipped by the POORLY equipped VC....so they were surely going to get whipped by the NVA who were much better equipped and trained--if they had supplies or not -YOU need to learn some history 
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia

HEY--you people are just like some of these people who think in TV terms/movie land
JESUS F CHRIST --it's not just a MILITARY problem--it was corruption/political/CULTURE that figures in-----

.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many  more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
Click to expand...

.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have


----------



## harmonica

it doesn't matter if the US stayed/sent more troops/supplies/etc =
.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
> We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side
> 
> They still managed to lose
Click to expand...

exactly 
we were there long before 1965 
here at Ap Bac, the VC beat the much better equipped ARVN 
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
Click to expand...

stable???!!!!  hahahahhahahahahahahhaahah
...again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
....if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have
...even though Thieu was in, you STILL have that corruption/instability/etc--you don't get rid of it in a few years

....you--*of all people*---should know you can't create an EFFICIENT  military force with esprit de corp/etc in just a few years---especially with crap leadership 

ANOTHER 
ANOTHER COUP IN SOUTH VIETNAM RAISES QUESTIONS FOR A CRITICAL AREA; Asian Turmoil
Military Coups in South Vietnam


----------



## harmonica

...you can't create an efficient military force in a few YEARS--yes--YEARS
..so the ARVN were not stopping anyone


----------



## harmonica

K9Buck said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your leftist comrades won.  Surely you're pleased about that outcome.  After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?
Click to expand...

why would we want that ---?  they are competition --correct?


----------



## K9Buck

harmonica said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your leftist comrades won.  Surely you're pleased about that outcome.  After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would we want that ---?  they are competition --correct?
Click to expand...


Why would we want what?  I don't follow.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North
> 
> They were going to take them anyway
> 
> 
> 
> Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side
> 
> They still managed to lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can  not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were allowed to withdraw our troops without being attacked
> In no way does that infer victory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL GOD you are AMAZINGLY IGNORANT of basic historical facts.
Click to expand...

We wanted to get out clean
Withdraw troops without suffering further casualties

N Vietnam dropped back, agreed to a ceasefire while we pulled out

That was not victory on our part


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> LBJ, who managed to get American Troops to Vietnam with a fake crisis, had the full support of the democrat party that dominated politics at the time. He set the rules so that the U.S. could win every battle and still lose the war. Just when LBJ achieved the unthinkable on the backs of Marines after the Tet offensive and the V.C. were whipped he gave up. Instead of claiming victory and forcing the VC into capitulation and just when the U.S. needed leadership, LBJ gave up on public T.V. and gave Giap crucial capital for Chinese support and recruitment. Democrats managed to blame the whole thing on Nixon.


LBJ wanted no part of Vietnam 

But he did not want to be the President that allowed Vietnam to turn communist on his watch


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stable???!!!!  hahahahhahahahahahahhaahah
> ...again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
> ....if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have
> ...even though Thieu was in, you STILL have that corruption/instability/etc--you don't get rid of it in a few years
> 
> ....you--*of all people*---should know you can't create an EFFICIENT  military force with esprit de corp/etc in just a few years---especially with crap leadership
> 
> ANOTHER
> ANOTHER COUP IN SOUTH VIETNAM RAISES QUESTIONS FOR A CRITICAL AREA; Asian Turmoil
> Military Coups in South Vietnam
Click to expand...


South Vietnam used high ranking military ranks as political patronage. Those Generals were more interested in filling their pockets than in obtaining victory


----------



## Camp

The Vietnam War was fundamentally, like so many wars, was a war of attrition. American leaders and military commanders believed they could inflict so many casualties on the communists Vietnamese they would be forced into surrender on negotiated terms that would leave a democratic independent South allied with the USA. It was an uneducated strategy doomed for failure. Communist in both the north and south were willing to accept huge casualties. Of note, insurgency wars bring large "collateral casualties", so, the communists were even willing to accept those casualties of innocent civilians. Those huge numbers of civilian casualties would greatly help the communist and hurt the American side. 
The communists believed correctly that the American population would only tolerate a limited number of casualties. The number was unknown, but the communists were confident they could inflict enough casualties on the Americans to reach the numbers. The communists were willing to wait decades for victory. Their history taught them patience. Americans burned out from high casualties quickly, and the more soldiers America sent to Vietnam, the higher the casualties got.
America's attrition strategy did not work. Communist Vietnam's did.


----------



## rightwinger

Camp said:


> The Vietnam War was fundamentally, like so many wars, was a war of attrition. American leaders and military commanders believed they could inflict so many casualties on the communists Vietnamese they would be forced into surrender on negotiated terms that would leave a democratic independent South allied with the USA. It was an uneducated strategy doomed for failure. Communist in both the north and south were willing to accept huge casualties. Of note, insurgency wars bring large "collateral casualties", so, the communists were even willing to accept those casualties of innocent civilians. Those huge numbers of civilian casualties would greatly help the communist and hurt the American side.
> The communists believed correctly that the American population would only tolerate a limited number of casualties. The number was unknown, but the communists were confident they could inflict enough casualties on the Americans to reach the numbers. The communists were willing to wait decades for victory. Their history taught them patience. Americans burned out from high casualties quickly, and the more soldiers America sent to Vietnam, the higher the casualties got.
> America's attrition strategy did not work. Communist Vietnam's did.


Even if we “won” in Vietnam we would have had to maintain a peacekeeping force. The insurgency would have remained picking off Americans 
It was a no win situation


----------



## westwall

harmonica said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
Click to expand...






No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
Click to expand...

that's what *makes *them unwinnable
if all wars are winnable, how come Russia lost in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam?? the two MOST powerful military nations??
..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!

..as Righwinger says, we could've went into NVietnam but it would've made no difference
to be continued


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
Click to expand...

...please explain how it could've been won....details please


----------



## harmonica

K9Buck said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your leftist comrades won.  Surely you're pleased about that outcome.  After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would we want that ---?  they are competition --correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we want what?  I don't follow.
Click to expand...

...a thriving capitalist country like SKorea because they are competing with us--taking jobs from the US/business/etc


----------



## Desperado

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was fundamentally, like so many wars, was a war of attrition. American leaders and military commanders believed they could inflict so many casualties on the communists Vietnamese they would be forced into surrender on negotiated terms that would leave a democratic independent South allied with the USA. It was an uneducated strategy doomed for failure. Communist in both the north and south were willing to accept huge casualties. Of note, insurgency wars bring large "collateral casualties", so, the communists were even willing to accept those casualties of innocent civilians. Those huge numbers of civilian casualties would greatly help the communist and hurt the American side.
> The communists believed correctly that the American population would only tolerate a limited number of casualties. The number was unknown, but the communists were confident they could inflict enough casualties on the Americans to reach the numbers. The communists were willing to wait decades for victory. Their history taught them patience. Americans burned out from high casualties quickly, and the more soldiers America sent to Vietnam, the higher the casualties got.
> America's attrition strategy did not work. Communist Vietnam's did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we “won” in Vietnam we would have had to maintain a peacekeeping force. The insurgency would have remained picking off Americans
> It was a no win situation
Click to expand...

Sounds like your describing Afghanistan and Iraq We never learn from our mistakes


----------



## K9Buck

harmonica said:


> ...a thriving capitalist country like SKorea because they are competing with us--taking jobs from the US/business/etc



Their capitalist system allows the people to be productive and they are!  They create and grow wealth and are a very wealthy, stable democracy.  

If China were to become a full-fledged democracy, North Korea would eventually change and reunify with the south, we could significantly reduce our defense spending and we would all be far more prosperous.


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
Click to expand...

if they go into NVietnam--which is the only way they could TRY to win, they would be taking mucho casualties


K9Buck said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...a thriving capitalist country like SKorea because they are competing with us--taking jobs from the US/business/etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their capitalist system allows the people to be productive and they are!  They create and grow wealth and are a very wealthy, stable democracy.
> 
> If China were to become a full-fledged democracy, North Korea would eventually change and reunify with the south, we could significantly reduce our defense spending and we would all be far more prosperous.
Click to expand...

1. the USSR fell apart and we *STILL* spend mucho $$$$!!!! 
2. reduce defense spending was not the point---competing with us is the point--SKorea takes business/jobs/etc from the US because we help it be a thriving capitalist country
Japan also


----------



## westwall

harmonica said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...please explain how it could've been won....details please
Click to expand...








You have to have a military force present that is strong enough to deal with any situation.  You then have to set up secure areas and allow no one in who is not strongly vetted.  Those secure areas live their lives apart from the rest of the country which is fighting.  You kill every bad guy you can, and you destroy their support network.  But, the people from their support network you place in separate secure areas and over years of education you wean them off of the indoctrination.  Sometimes they fall back and decide to be bad guys, and they kill whoever is around them, and then they are killed in their turn, but never do they get to attack those who are in the secure areas.  After a couple of generations have passed the bad guys are dead, and the secure areas can then be opened again and the good folks allowed back out to repopulate the country.


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
Click to expand...

Please read the OP again
....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS 
..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
..no we are NOT going to use nukes
etc
= unwinnable


----------



## westwall

harmonica said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read the OP again
> ....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
> jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
> ..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
> ..no we are NOT going to use nukes
> etc
> = unwinnable
Click to expand...






Yes, this is how you defeat an insurgency.  They are MULTI GENERATIONAL WARS.  That's how you defeat these people.  Otherwise you are merely playing whack a mole.  I am sorry you're not smart enough to think of a solution.  But this is the least violent way.  The other way to win is you kill everyone in the country.  That is not acceptable to any civilized person, but it is certainly possible.


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...please explain how it could've been won....details please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a military force present that is strong enough to deal with any situation.  You then have to set up secure areas and allow no one in who is not strongly vetted.  Those secure areas live their lives apart from the rest of the country which is fighting.  You kill every bad guy you can, and you destroy their support network.  But, the people from their support network you place in separate secure areas and over years of education you wean them off of the indoctrination.  Sometimes they fall back and decide to be bad guys, and they kill whoever is around them, and then they are killed in their turn, but never do they get to attack those who are in the secure areas.  After a couple of generations have passed the bad guys are dead, and the secure areas can then be opened again and the good folks allowed back out to repopulate the country.
Click to expand...

O my Freakin Lord!! 
please stop the comedy
...THAT is your scenario for a WIN????!!!
you just made a fool of yourself 
that doesn't even make sense
you MUST be trying to be a jerkhead


----------



## harmonica

westwall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read the OP again
> ....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
> jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
> ..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
> ..no we are NOT going to use nukes
> etc
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is how you defeat an insurgency.  They are MULTI GENERATIONAL WARS.  That's how you defeat these people.  Otherwise you are merely playing whack a mole.  I am sorry you're not smart enough to think of a solution.  But this is the least violent way.  The other way to win is you kill everyone in the country.  That is not acceptable to any civilized person, but it is certainly possible.
Click to expand...

Vietnam---SAME as Afghanistan in *1839, 1979 and NOW-*-unwinnable


----------



## westwall

harmonica said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> isn't worth attempting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not unwinnable,  just not worth the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read the OP again
> ....we are talking about the Vietnam War --not WW2--also we are talking about reality--per the OP
> jesus f christ!! you people and your IF scenarios--they are RIDICULOUS
> ..no we are NOT going to invade North Vietnam
> ..no we are NOT going to use nukes
> etc
> = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is how you defeat an insurgency.  They are MULTI GENERATIONAL WARS.  That's how you defeat these people.  Otherwise you are merely playing whack a mole.  I am sorry you're not smart enough to think of a solution.  But this is the least violent way.  The other way to win is you kill everyone in the country.  That is not acceptable to any civilized person, but it is certainly possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vietnam---SAME as Afghanistan in *1839, 1979 and NOW-*-unwinnable
Click to expand...







OK, you're a troll.  Bye.


----------



## mikegriffith1

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.



Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.

Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.

Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.

Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.

Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).

No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation

Facts and Myths

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
Click to expand...




> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign


proof please of this AMAZING claim
!!!!!
NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
NV is NOT surrendering



> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia


again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area



> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*


bold mine
thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not



> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam


again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing

the French lost before us --
then the US lost
like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous


----------



## Desperado

Bottom line is that it was unwinnable because we were not fighting to win.  Politicians got in the way, Our Military leaders just wanted to play with the latest equipment , soldier's lives be damned.  We should never get involved in a country;s civil war.
This lesson still has not been learned by our government


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation
> 
> Facts and Myths
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
Click to expand...

from your link:


> . When we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war


????!!!!!! --won the war????!!!!!!!??? = that link is crap


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation
> 
> Facts and Myths
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
Click to expand...

from _The Vietnam War_ by Ken Burns:
'''the North Vietnamese remained immovable''--- regarding negotiations
''the Vietnamese [ North ] were determined to* fight to the end*''


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation
> 
> Facts and Myths
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
Click to expand...




> Convinced that the war was *unwinnable,* he left the Pentagon in 1968 to head the World Bank.





> We were just wrong, both military leaders and civilian leaders, in failing to recognize the nature of the conflict and failing to recognize early on that the strategy we were following would not accomplish our objective,"


MCNAMARA: U.S. DIDN'T BELONG IN VIETNAM


----------



## harmonica

> Convinced that the war was* unwinnable,* he left the Pentagon in 1968 to head the World Bank.


MCNAMARA: U.S. DIDN'T BELONG IN VIETNAM


----------



## harmonica

Desperado said:


> Bottom line is that it was unwinnable because we were not fighting to win.  Politicians got in the way, Our Military leaders just wanted to play with the latest equipment , soldier's lives be damned.  We should never get involved in a country;s civil war.
> This lesson still has not been learned by our government


..and the French?? and in Afghanistan--the Brits AND the Russians?? the US, French, Brits and Russians are not fighting to win?


----------



## mikegriffith1

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
Click to expand...


Please read the links I provided.


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation
> 
> Facts and Myths
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
Click to expand...

NV never was on the verge of surrender. They had no reason to do so
The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South 

The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more

We were


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> No More Vietnams » Richard Nixon Foundation
> 
> Facts and Myths
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NV never was on the verge of surrender. They had no reason to do so
> The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South
> 
> The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more
> 
> We were
Click to expand...

thank you--I don''t know how mikeg could even say that crap


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please read the links I provided.
Click to expand...

hahahahahhaah--are you out of your mind!!!!????
quote the details now..specify the page


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please read the links I provided.
Click to expand...

I just proved the Nixon link is crap


----------



## mikegriffith1

> NV never was on the verge of surrender.



Uh, yeah they were, during Nixon's final bombing campaign. They were almost out of SAMs. We now know that they were panicked and ready to surrender, but the American Left saved the day for them and pressured Nixon into halting the bombing.



> They had no reason to do so.



Yeah, they did: They feared they were about to get bombed into eternity. They feared that the U.S. was finally willing to use overwhelming force.



> The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South.



No, they had NV on the ropes with the final bombing campaign and after destroying NV sanctuary areas across the border. The NVese feared that we were finally going to let loose all the dogs of war on them, and they were on the verge of running out of SAMs.



> The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more.



Yes, they were, when we began to bring the war to their capital in a major air onslaught. Suddenly, it wasn't just troops in the field getting hit. Furthermore, the NVese cared very much about casualties, which is why they tried to avoid set-piece battles with us, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive.

Expand your reading beyond textbooks and establishment stories.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> NV never was on the verge of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah they were, during Nixon's final bombing campaign. They were almost out of SAMs. We now know that they were panicked and ready to surrender, but the American Left saved the day for them and pressured Nixon into halting the bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no reason to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they did: They feared they were about to get bombed into eternity. They feared that the U.S. was finally willing to use overwhelming force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they had NV on the ropes with the final bombing campaign and after destroying NV sanctuary areas across the border. The NVese feared that we were finally going to let loose all the dogs of war on them, and they were on the verge of running out of SAMs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they were, when we began to bring the war to their capital in a major air onslaught. Suddenly, it wasn't just troops in the field getting hit. Furthermore, the NVese cared very much about casualties, which is why they tried to avoid set-piece battles with us, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive.
> 
> Expand your reading beyond textbooks and establishment stories.
Click to expand...

quote your proof/specify the page/etc


----------



## mikegriffith1

General Giap regarding our last bombing campaign said NV was just about ready to quit:

General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam
military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the
Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:

“What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing
of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same
at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you
knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping
us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!”


harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please read the links I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just proved the Nixon link is crap
Click to expand...


You proved no such thing. You're repeating the standard liberal talking points about the Vietnam War, which are designed to obscure/hide the fact that the Democrats sabotaged the war effort and handed South Vietnam over to the Communists.

Quoting the likes of weak-kneed politicians like McNamara proves nothing.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> Furthermore, the NVese were ready to surrender again in 1975 because they feared we were returning in large numbers.
> 
> In Memoriam: Vo Nguyen Giap, Admitted US ‘Almost Won’ Vietnam War In 1975


they are ''rolling into the presidential palace'' and would've surrendered....?????
BULLSHIT mg--- the Duffel Blog !!!!!!!  hahahhahahah
Ken Burns says the opposite


> He said in articles published in Hanoi in 1967: “The United States imperialists want to fight quickly. To fight a protracted war is a big defeat for them. Their morale is lower than grass. . . . National liberation wars must allow some time — a long time. . . . The Americans didn’t understand that we had soldiers everywhere and that it was very hard to surprise us.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html?noredirect=on


----------



## MaryL

What if we had actually listened to Ho chi Min, and came to the aid of the Vietnamese instead of the French colonialists? McNamara knew that, it cost us...plenty.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> General Giap regarding our last bombing campaign said NV was just about ready to quit:
> 
> General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam
> military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the
> Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:
> 
> “What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing
> of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
> just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same
> at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you
> knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping
> us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
> battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!”
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please read the links I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just proved the Nixon link is crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved no such thing. You're repeating the standard liberal talking points about the Vietnam War, which are designed to obscure/hide the fact that the Democrats sabotaged the war effort and handed South Vietnam over to the Communists.
> 
> Quoting the likes of weak-kneed politicians like McNamara proves nothing.
Click to expand...




> In his most recent statement on the matter that we’re aware of, a 1996 interviewconducted for a CNN series on the Cold War, General Giap attributed the Communists’ eventual military victory to their courage, determination, wisdom, tactics, intelligence, and sacrifices, along with Americans’ lack of knowledge about the Vietnamese nation and its people, but he said nothing about a defeated Vietminh preparing to give up the effort before U.S. protesters and news media changed the course of the war.
> 
> It’s possible that the apparently apocryphal General Giap statement is based upon a misattribution of somewhat similar sentiments expressed by other political or military figures involved in the Vietnam War. For example, in 1995 the _Wall Street Journal_published an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:


mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to 
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War


----------



## harmonica

> By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
> "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."


Bui Tin


----------



## Rambunctious

It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> NV never was on the verge of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah they were, during Nixon's final bombing campaign. They were almost out of SAMs. We now know that they were panicked and ready to surrender, but the American Left saved the day for them and pressured Nixon into halting the bombing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had no reason to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, they did: They feared they were about to get bombed into eternity. They feared that the U.S. was finally willing to use overwhelming force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best the US could have hoped for was a cessation of hostilities against the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they had NV on the ropes with the final bombing campaign and after destroying NV sanctuary areas across the border. The NVese feared that we were finally going to let loose all the dogs of war on them, and they were on the verge of running out of SAMs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnamese had already lost over a million lives. They were not hesitant to lose more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they were, when we began to bring the war to their capital in a major air onslaught. Suddenly, it wasn't just troops in the field getting hit. Furthermore, the NVese cared very much about casualties, which is why they tried to avoid set-piece battles with us, especially after the disastrous Tet Offensive.
> 
> Expand your reading beyond textbooks and establishment stories.
Click to expand...


The North Vietnamese never had any reason to surrender. Surrender would mean they surrender to the South and cease to exist. Wasn’t going to happen. All we could hope for was they would agree to existing borders. At no time during the war, did we ever hope for more 

Vietnam rarely chose to go head to head with us. They knew they would come out on the short end. They preferred to attack us piecemeal and inflict casualties. After almost 60,000 we had enough


----------



## harmonica

Rambunctious said:


> It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...


give us a scenario for winning--how would we ''fight it to win''?


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Giap regarding our last bombing campaign said NV was just about ready to quit:
> 
> General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam
> military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the
> Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:
> 
> “What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing
> of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
> just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same
> at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you
> knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping
> us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
> battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!”
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of problems with these arguments. First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign. NV was just about out of SAM missiles and could not replace them anytime soon. They were on the verge of suing for peace.
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia and had supported him in his desire to move deeper into Cambodia, we could have dealt a crippling blow to the NVese.
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese two years to recover from their losses in the Tet Offensive and to regain the ability to carry out sizable offensive operations. Ho Chi Minh was so upset at the horrendous losses that his army suffered in the Tet Offensive that he relieved the commanding general, General Giap.
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam and saved millions of Vietnamese from Communist brutality in the decades after we pulled out.
> 
> Finally, had it not been for FDR's and then Truman's terrible handling of WWII, the Soviets never would have gained a foothold in Vietnam in the first place, and China would not have gone Communist. Vietnam would have been far better off under Japanese control than under Communist control, and China would have been infinitely better off with the Nationalists and the Japanese in control (Japan repeatedly offered to let the Nationalists control all of China except for Manchuria). What's more, there would have been no Korean War if we had not foolishly insisted that the Japanese leave Korea (Korea had been part of Japan for 40 years before Truman decided to force the Japanese to leave).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, historians have known for some time that Nixon had North Vietnam (NV) on the verge of surrender just before liberal Democrats and the media pressured him into halting the bombing campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, if the Democrats had not screamed and whined when Nixon took the badly needed action of striking NV forces in Cambodia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, the Tet Offensive was an abject disaster for the NVese, although one would never have known it to watch our media's reporting on it. We decimated the NV army in the Tet Offensive. It took the NVese *two years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, if liberal politicians had not forced us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs, we could have at least secured the independence of South Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please read the links I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just proved the Nixon link is crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved no such thing. You're repeating the standard liberal talking points about the Vietnam War, which are designed to obscure/hide the fact that the Democrats sabotaged the war effort and handed South Vietnam over to the Communists.
> 
> Quoting the likes of weak-kneed politicians like McNamara proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In his most recent statement on the matter that we’re aware of, a 1996 interviewconducted for a CNN series on the Cold War, General Giap attributed the Communists’ eventual military victory to their courage, determination, wisdom, tactics, intelligence, and sacrifices, along with Americans’ lack of knowledge about the Vietnamese nation and its people, but he said nothing about a defeated Vietminh preparing to give up the effort before U.S. protesters and news media changed the course of the war.
> 
> It’s possible that the apparently apocryphal General Giap statement is based upon a misattribution of somewhat similar sentiments expressed by other political or military figures involved in the Vietnam War. For example, in 1995 the _Wall Street Journal_published an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
Click to expand...

Giap never said they were on the verge of quitting

That is just conservative revisionist history...we were SO close to winning and the media screwed it up


----------



## mikegriffith1

If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort and handed victory to the Communists, read Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You_ (Warren Publishing, 2009). Scruggs was a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam. His book is one of the best refutations of the standard liberal myths about the war, such as the myths repeated by the likes of Ken Burns and John Paul Vann, among many others. 

Here are some good online articles on the Left's betrayal of America in the Vietnam War:

Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War

Vietnam War Myths

AIM Report April A, 1975

Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture | RealClearPolitics

Here's a good five-minute video that summarizes the betrayal that led to South Vietnam's defeat:

The Truth about the Vietnam War

Here's a good documentary, made in 1984 and narrated by Charlton Heston, _Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, _that, among other things, responds to PBS's slated documentary on the war and also discusses how anti-war and immoral politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort:


----------



## rightwinger

Rambunctious said:


> It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...


The problem with “winning” was we were on the wrong side

We were never going to win the hearts and minds of the people. They resented our being there and did not consider the South to be a legitimate government


----------



## Natural Citizen

Speaking of the real story, anything about Gulf of Tonkin in there?


----------



## MaryL

When  Robert McNamara, the architect  of the Vietnam war knew it was a lost cause back in 64', well, we can't add too much to that, can we?


----------



## Third Party

mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort and handed victory to the Communists, read Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You_ (Warren Publishing, 2009). Scruggs was a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam. His book is one of the best refutations of the standard liberal myths about the war, such as the myths repeated by the likes of Ken Burns and John Paul Vann, among many others.
> 
> Here are some good online articles on the Left's betrayal of America in the Vietnam War:
> 
> Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
> 
> Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Here's a good five-minute video that summarizes the betrayal that led to South Vietnam's defeat:
> 
> The Truth about the Vietnam War
> 
> Here's a good documentary, made in 1984 and narrated by Charlton Heston, _Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, _that, among other things, responds to PBS's slated documentary on the war and also discusses how anti-war and immoral politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort:


Please, the war was hopeless from the start because it was NOT a war. It was a local civil uprising and some here were making lots of money off it.


----------



## mikegriffith1

rightwinger said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with “winning” was we were on the wrong side
> 
> We were never going to win the hearts and minds of the people. They resented our being there and did not consider the South to be a legitimate government
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, you can repeat these myths ad nauseam--that won't make them come true. You might want to read and watch the articles and videos linked in my thread The Vietnam War Was Winnable, especially the Charlton Heston documentary. You might also want to read former USAF intelligence officer Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You._


----------



## lennypartiv

Natural Citizen said:


> Speaking of the real story, anything about Gulf of Tonkin in there?


I bet you were one of the hippies who burned your draft card at Woodstock.


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with “winning” was we were on the wrong side
> 
> We were never going to win the hearts and minds of the people. They resented our being there and did not consider the South to be a legitimate government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you can repeat these myths ad nauseam--that won't make them come true. You might want to read and watch the articles and videos linked in my thread The Vietnam War Was Winnable, especially the Charlton Heston documentary. You might also want to read former USAF intelligence officer Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You._
Click to expand...


Revisionist history still claiming victory in Vietnam was within our grasp

By 1967, Robert McNamara was already admitting in private that the war was not winnable


----------



## Andylusion

MaryL said:


> When  Robert McNamara, the architect  of the Vietnam war knew it was a lost cause back in 64', well, we can't add too much to that, can we?



If you put in place, rules that make a game unwinnable, then yes, it is unwinnable.

We did not take the fight to the north Vietnamese.  We did not march up there, and destroy them.   

This is kind of like playing football, with the rules being... you can only stop the other time from scoring, but you are never allowed to run the ball past the 50 yard line, and there is no time limit to the game.

Well yeah... if those are the rules of the game, you will lose.

The US government put rules on our military the prevented us from winning.  There was no possible way to defeat the enemy, when we were not allowed to fight the enemy.  All we did was march around in circles.    Well yeah, if we are that stupid, then yeah we're going to lose.

But if we had fought the enemy... . if the left-wing trash protesting in the streets, and their left-wing leadership in government, had not put those rules in place on our military.....

we would have flattened the North Vietnamese.... and easily too.   Easily.  We would have rolled over them like a fat boy rolling through and all-you-can-eat buffet.

And by the way... that is not a dis- against Vietnamese soldiers, that's just a fact.   They were less trained, less equipped, and less supported.  In some cases, they were robbing local villages, just to get food to keep their soldiers alive.  

Saying that the US military could not win in face to face combat against the North Vietnamese, is like saying a Harvard professor couldn't win against Forest Gump in a battle of knowledge.

Of course we could win.  In fact, even the North Vietnamese knew that, this is why they avoided engagement directly with US troops.


----------



## MaryL

Andylusion said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When  Robert McNamara, the architect  of the Vietnam war knew it was a lost cause back in 64', well, we can't add too much to that, can we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put in place, rules that make a game unwinnable, then yes, it is unwinnable.
> 
> We did not take the fight to the north Vietnamese.  We did not march up there, and destroy them.
> 
> This is kind of like playing football, with the rules being... you can only stop the other time from scoring, but you are never allowed to run the ball past the 50 yard line, and there is no time limit to the game.
> 
> Well yeah... if those are the rules of the game, you will lose.
> 
> The US government put rules on our military the prevented us from winning.  There was no possible way to defeat the enemy, when we were not allowed to fight the enemy.  All we did was march around in circles.    Well yeah, if we are that stupid, then yeah we're going to lose.
> 
> But if we had fought the enemy... . if the left-wing trash protesting in the streets, and their left-wing leadership in government, had not put those rules in place on our military.....
> 
> we would have flattened the North Vietnamese.... and easily too.   Easily.  We would have rolled over them like a fat boy rolling through and all-you-can-eat buffet.
> 
> And by the way... that is not a dis- against Vietnamese soldiers, that's just a fact.   They were less trained, less equipped, and less supported.  In some cases, they were robbing local villages, just to get food to keep their soldiers alive.
> 
> Saying that the US military could not win in face to face combat against the North Vietnamese, is like saying a Harvard professor couldn't win against Forest Gump in a battle of knowledge.
> 
> Of course we could win.  In fact, even the North Vietnamese knew that, this is why they avoided engagement directly with US troops.
Click to expand...

Debatable, the Christmas bombing of 1972,  Nixon's  so called "Rolling Thunder" bombing campaign almost ended  the war.


----------



## Flash

It is amazing to see the amount of confusion many people have about the war.  The confusion comes from learning about the war from Hollywood and the Liberals.

The US met the objectives of the war when the Paris Peace Accord was signed.  It preserved the right of South Vietnam to exist free from Hanoi Communists rule.  That was the objective from the beginning.

Too bad the vile stupid Democrats (aided by a few weak minded Republicans) voted to defund the South Vietnamese, giving a green light to the Communists to invade.  All the blood from the Killing Fields and the aftermath is on the hands of the Democrats.  Being despicable assholes with no honor they will never admit it but it is the case.


----------



## MaryL

The key to our loss in Vietnam is Bob McNamara. The same wunderkind GM exec that pushed the Ford  64 & 1/2 Mustang car guy.  That bean counter intellectual realized the Vietnam war was unwinnable yet at the same time pushed into  Kennedy's entire psychology.


----------



## Natural Citizen

lennypartiv said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of the real story, anything about Gulf of Tonkin in there?
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you were one of the hippies who burned your draft card at Woodstock.
Click to expand...


No, I wasn't even born yet, duh.


----------



## MaryL

Alexi Kosygin. I remember the name. The Paris Accords...The Christmas bombing of 72...  Like it was yesterday.


----------



## Andylusion

Third Party said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort and handed victory to the Communists, read Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You_ (Warren Publishing, 2009). Scruggs was a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam. His book is one of the best refutations of the standard liberal myths about the war, such as the myths repeated by the likes of Ken Burns and John Paul Vann, among many others.
> 
> Here are some good online articles on the Left's betrayal of America in the Vietnam War:
> 
> Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
> 
> Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Here's a good five-minute video that summarizes the betrayal that led to South Vietnam's defeat:
> 
> The Truth about the Vietnam War
> 
> Here's a good documentary, made in 1984 and narrated by Charlton Heston, _Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, _that, among other things, responds to PBS's slated documentary on the war and also discusses how anti-war and immoral politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, the war was hopeless from the start because it was NOT a war. It was a local civil uprising and some here were making lots of money off it.
Click to expand...

mmm... no. It was a war.  And honestly, it wasn't a local civil uprising.  Unless you would consider a small group of US citizens, joining a Mexican armed militia group, backed by Russia, to slaughter US citizens in hopes that Mexico will take over the US... to be a local civil uprising...


----------



## Third Party

Andylusion said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort and handed victory to the Communists, read Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You_ (Warren Publishing, 2009). Scruggs was a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam. His book is one of the best refutations of the standard liberal myths about the war, such as the myths repeated by the likes of Ken Burns and John Paul Vann, among many others.
> 
> Here are some good online articles on the Left's betrayal of America in the Vietnam War:
> 
> Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
> 
> Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Here's a good five-minute video that summarizes the betrayal that led to South Vietnam's defeat:
> 
> The Truth about the Vietnam War
> 
> Here's a good documentary, made in 1984 and narrated by Charlton Heston, _Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, _that, among other things, responds to PBS's slated documentary on the war and also discusses how anti-war and immoral politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, the war was hopeless from the start because it was NOT a war. It was a local civil uprising and some here were making lots of money off it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mmm... no. It was a war.  And honestly, it wasn't a local civil uprising.  Unless you would consider a small group of US citizens, joining a Mexican armed militia group, backed by Russia, to slaughter US citizens in hopes that Mexico will take over the US... to be a local civil uprising...
Click to expand...

Are you talking VietNam or Pancho Villa?


----------



## Picaro

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.


----------



## Picaro

Natural Citizen said:


> Speaking of the real story, anything about Gulf of Tonkin in there?



You mean the real story that the Maddox was indeed attacked by two North Vietnamese patrol boats in international waters? The only inaccuracy was the dates. The second one was thought to have been real at the time, so no lie there, either. Re the second 'attack:

The Truth About Tonkin

"By 0127 on 5 August, hours after the "attacks" had occurred, Herrick had queried his crew and reviewed the preceding hours' events. He sent a flash (highest priority) message to Honolulu, which was received in Washington at 1327 on 4 August, declaring his doubts: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by MADDOX. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken."13

*Confusion in Washington*
Messages declassified in 2005 and recently released tapes from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library reveal confusion among the leadership in Washington. Calls between the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the National Military Command Center; headquarters of the Commander in Chief, Pacific; and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara were frequently exchanged during the phantom battle. Vietnam was 12 hours ahead of Washington time, so the "attacks" in the evening of 4 August in the Gulf of Tonkin were being monitored in Washington late that morning.

In Hawaii, Pacific Fleet Commander-in-Chief Admiral U. S. Grant Sharp was receiving Captain Herrick's reports by flash message traffic, not voice reports. At 0248 in the Gulf, Herrick sent another report in which he changed his previous story:

*Certain that original ambush was bonafide. Details of action following present a confusing picture. Have interviewed witnesses who made positive visual sightings of cockpit lights or similar passing near MADDOX. Several reported torpedoes were probably boats themselves which were observed to make several close passes on MADDOX. Own ship screw noises on rudders may have accounted for some. At present cannot even estimate number of boats involved. TURNER JOY reports two torpedoes passed near her.14*https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin#footnotes

McNamara phoned Sharp at 1608 Washington time to talk it over and asked, "Was there a possibility that there had been no attack?" Sharp admitted that there was a "slight possibility" because of freak radar echoes, inexperienced sonarmen, and no visual sightings of torpedo wakes. The admiral added that he was trying to get information and recommended holding any order for a retaliatory strike against North Vietnam until "we have a definite indication of what happened."15

*Other intelligence supported the belief that an attack had occurred. An intercepted SIGINT message, apparently from one of the patrol boats, reported: "Shot down two planes in the battle area. We sacrificed two comrades but all the rest are okay. The enemy ship could also have been damaged."16 Amid all the other confusion and growing doubt about the attack, this battle report was a compelling piece of evidence. At 1723 in Washington, Air Force Lieutenant General David Burchinal, the director of the Joint Staff, was watching the events unfold from the National Military Command Center when he received a phone call from Sharp. He admitted that the new SIGINT intercept "pins it down better than anything so far."17

McNamara considered the report, coupled with Admiral Sharp's belief the attack was authentic, as conclusive proof. At 2336, President Johnson appeared on national television and announced his intent to retaliate against North Vietnamese targets: "Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with positive reply. The reply is being given as I speak to you tonight."18"*https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin#footnotes


----------



## Picaro

Andylusion said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort and handed victory to the Communists, read Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You_ (Warren Publishing, 2009). Scruggs was a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam. His book is one of the best refutations of the standard liberal myths about the war, such as the myths repeated by the likes of Ken Burns and John Paul Vann, among many others.
> 
> Here are some good online articles on the Left's betrayal of America in the Vietnam War:
> 
> Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
> 
> Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Here's a good five-minute video that summarizes the betrayal that led to South Vietnam's defeat:
> 
> The Truth about the Vietnam War
> 
> Here's a good documentary, made in 1984 and narrated by Charlton Heston, _Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, _that, among other things, responds to PBS's slated documentary on the war and also discusses how anti-war and immoral politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, the war was hopeless from the start because it was NOT a war. It was a local civil uprising and some here were making lots of money off it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mmm... no. It was a war.  And honestly, it wasn't a local civil uprising.  Unless you would consider a small group of US citizens, joining a Mexican armed militia group, backed by Russia, to slaughter US citizens in hopes that Mexico will take over the US... to be a local civil uprising...
Click to expand...


Ho had also been inviting Viet Minh leaders to see him in Red China, then ratting out those who weren't loyall to him and the Communists to the French intelligence as they crossed back over the border, and putting his own men in charge. that doesn't qualify as 'locals' either.


----------



## Third Party

Picaro said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort and handed victory to the Communists, read Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You_ (Warren Publishing, 2009). Scruggs was a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam. His book is one of the best refutations of the standard liberal myths about the war, such as the myths repeated by the likes of Ken Burns and John Paul Vann, among many others.
> 
> Here are some good online articles on the Left's betrayal of America in the Vietnam War:
> 
> Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War
> 
> Vietnam War Myths
> 
> AIM Report April A, 1975
> 
> Don't Blame Nixon for Scuttled Peace Overture | RealClearPolitics
> 
> Here's a good five-minute video that summarizes the betrayal that led to South Vietnam's defeat:
> 
> The Truth about the Vietnam War
> 
> Here's a good documentary, made in 1984 and narrated by Charlton Heston, _Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, _that, among other things, responds to PBS's slated documentary on the war and also discusses how anti-war and immoral politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, the war was hopeless from the start because it was NOT a war. It was a local civil uprising and some here were making lots of money off it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mmm... no. It was a war.  And honestly, it wasn't a local civil uprising.  Unless you would consider a small group of US citizens, joining a Mexican armed militia group, backed by Russia, to slaughter US citizens in hopes that Mexico will take over the US... to be a local civil uprising...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ho had also been inviting Viet Minh leaders to see him in Red China, then ratting out those who weren't loyall to him and the Communists to the French intelligence as they crossed back over the border, and putting his own men in charge. that doesn't qualify as 'locals' either.
Click to expand...

They were right-Mexico DID take over the US


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> General Giap regarding our last bombing campaign said NV was just about ready to quit:
> 
> General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam
> military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the
> Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:
> 
> “What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing
> of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder,
> just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same
> at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you
> knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping
> us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
> battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!”
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> proof please of this AMAZING claim
> !!!!!
> NVietnam was toying with he US at the negotiation table
> NV is NOT surrendering
> 
> again--proof --AND Cambodia is not critical area
> 
> bold mine
> thank you--that's another *reason WHY* it was unwinnable--they had all the time they needed--the US did not
> 
> again--the South's leadership/etc was crap/corrupt/etc--this is a HUGE point---the South's military and government were corrupt---they were not going to help at all--as proven when the North won ''quickly'' after the US stopped bombing
> 
> the French lost before us --
> then the US lost
> like Afghanistan, you are NOT going to change a country's culture/politics/etc
> please, maybe you can give us some scenario for a win--westwall's try was ludicrous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the links I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just proved the Nixon link is crap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved no such thing. You're repeating the standard liberal talking points about the Vietnam War, which are designed to obscure/hide the fact that the Democrats sabotaged the war effort and handed South Vietnam over to the Communists.
> 
> Quoting the likes of weak-kneed politicians like McNamara proves nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In his most recent statement on the matter that we’re aware of, a 1996 interviewconducted for a CNN series on the Cold War, General Giap attributed the Communists’ eventual military victory to their courage, determination, wisdom, tactics, intelligence, and sacrifices, along with Americans’ lack of knowledge about the Vietnamese nation and its people, but he said nothing about a defeated Vietminh preparing to give up the effort before U.S. protesters and news media changed the course of the war.
> 
> It’s possible that the apparently apocryphal General Giap statement is based upon a misattribution of somewhat similar sentiments expressed by other political or military figures involved in the Vietnam War. For example, in 1995 the _Wall Street Journal_published an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Giap never said they were on the verge of quitting
> 
> That is just conservative revisionist history...we were SO close to winning and the media screwed it up
Click to expand...

.....that crap about Giap is like the Smollet case.......they've been fighting the Japanese, the French, and then the Americans for over 25 years and on the verge of victory they are going to surrender???!!!
big HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with “winning” was we were on the wrong side
> 
> We were never going to win the hearts and minds of the people. They resented our being there and did not consider the South to be a legitimate government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you can repeat these myths ad nauseam--that won't make them come true. You might want to read and watch the articles and videos linked in my thread The Vietnam War Was Winnable, especially the Charlton Heston documentary. You might also want to read former USAF intelligence officer Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You._
Click to expand...

it was winnable and that's why we lost
????!!!!!!
Morley Safer knew it was unwinnable in 1965
McNamara knew it


----------



## rightwinger

In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:


70% – To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat (to our reputation as a guarantor).
20% – To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
10% – To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
ALSO – To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
NOT – To help a friend, although it would be hard to stay in if asked out.[12][35]


Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia


----------



## mikegriffith1

Andylusion said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When  Robert McNamara, the architect  of the Vietnam war knew it was a lost cause back in 64', well, we can't add too much to that, can we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put in place, rules that make a game unwinnable, then yes, it is unwinnable.
> 
> We did not take the fight to the north Vietnamese.  We did not march up there, and destroy them.
> 
> This is kind of like playing football, with the rules being... you can only stop the other time from scoring, but you are never allowed to run the ball past the 50 yard line, and there is no time limit to the game.
> 
> Well yeah... if those are the rules of the game, you will lose.
> 
> The US government put rules on our military the prevented us from winning.  There was no possible way to defeat the enemy, when we were not allowed to fight the enemy.  All we did was march around in circles.    Well yeah, if we are that stupid, then yeah we're going to lose.
> 
> But if we had fought the enemy... . if the left-wing trash protesting in the streets, and their left-wing leadership in government, had not put those rules in place on our military.....
> 
> we would have flattened the North Vietnamese.... and easily too.   Easily.  We would have rolled over them like a fat boy rolling through and all-you-can-eat buffet.
> 
> And by the way... that is not a dis- against Vietnamese soldiers, that's just a fact.   They were less trained, less equipped, and less supported.  In some cases, they were robbing local villages, just to get food to keep their soldiers alive.
> 
> Saying that the US military could not win in face to face combat against the North Vietnamese, is like saying a Harvard professor couldn't win against Forest Gump in a battle of knowledge.
> 
> Of course we could win.  In fact, even the North Vietnamese knew that, this is why they avoided engagement directly with US troops.
Click to expand...


Your point about our absurd rules of engagement is a good one. I should have mentioned them in the OP. Scruggs talks about them in his book. They were unbelievable. When Nixon began to discard some of them, we began to make tangible progress. 

Those who say the NVese didn't care about casualties have never seriously studied the war. The NVese cared deeply about casualties, which was why they usually avoided set-piece battles with us, especially big ones. 

All of this is not to say that everything we did in Vietnam was perfect or upright. Nor is it to say that the SVese government was a shining example of democracy. Similarly, the South Korean government that we initially set up was hardly a paragon of virtue, but it was better than the alternative.


----------



## Desperado

Vietnam was never winnable.
The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.


----------



## edthecynic

mikegriffith1 said:


> If you want the full story on the Vietnam War and how certain Washington politicians, mostly Democrats, sabotaged the war effort


Typical GOP revisionist history.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a blunder of epic proportions....but it would have been "winnable" if we fought it to win it...we confuse warfare with welfare...you can't fight like that...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with “winning” was we were on the wrong side
> 
> We were never going to win the hearts and minds of the people. They resented our being there and did not consider the South to be a legitimate government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you can repeat these myths ad nauseam--that won't make them come true. You might want to read and watch the articles and videos linked in my thread The Vietnam War Was Winnable, especially the Charlton Heston documentary. You might also want to read former USAF intelligence officer Leonard Scruggs' book _Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revisionist history still claiming victory in Vietnam was within our grasp
> 
> By 1967, Robert McNamara was already admitting in private that the war was not winnable
Click to expand...

mike started a copy thread because he was getting his a$$ spanked on this one
hahahhahahahhahahah


----------



## harmonica

Ken Burns book page 19:
in 1945/etc,--- '' wherever they [ the French soldiers ] went [ they ] were able to take territory but then didn't seem able to hold on to it....''
a French soldier writes:
''if we departed, believing a region pacified, ...the Viet Minh would arrive on our heels. Combat in Vietnam would follow that pattern for three decades'''
sound familiar???
UNwinnable


----------



## Dan Stubbs

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.


*A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *


----------



## harmonica

Dan Stubbs said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
Click to expand...

1. who was this general???! .....  '''a general'''' ------hahahahahahahah????
2. proof please!!!


----------



## Andylusion

Picaro said:


> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.



Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.



 
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.


----------



## Andylusion

mikegriffith1 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When  Robert McNamara, the architect  of the Vietnam war knew it was a lost cause back in 64', well, we can't add too much to that, can we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put in place, rules that make a game unwinnable, then yes, it is unwinnable.
> 
> We did not take the fight to the north Vietnamese.  We did not march up there, and destroy them.
> 
> This is kind of like playing football, with the rules being... you can only stop the other time from scoring, but you are never allowed to run the ball past the 50 yard line, and there is no time limit to the game.
> 
> Well yeah... if those are the rules of the game, you will lose.
> 
> The US government put rules on our military the prevented us from winning.  There was no possible way to defeat the enemy, when we were not allowed to fight the enemy.  All we did was march around in circles.    Well yeah, if we are that stupid, then yeah we're going to lose.
> 
> But if we had fought the enemy... . if the left-wing trash protesting in the streets, and their left-wing leadership in government, had not put those rules in place on our military.....
> 
> we would have flattened the North Vietnamese.... and easily too.   Easily.  We would have rolled over them like a fat boy rolling through and all-you-can-eat buffet.
> 
> And by the way... that is not a dis- against Vietnamese soldiers, that's just a fact.   They were less trained, less equipped, and less supported.  In some cases, they were robbing local villages, just to get food to keep their soldiers alive.
> 
> Saying that the US military could not win in face to face combat against the North Vietnamese, is like saying a Harvard professor couldn't win against Forest Gump in a battle of knowledge.
> 
> Of course we could win.  In fact, even the North Vietnamese knew that, this is why they avoided engagement directly with US troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point about our absurd rules of engagement is a good one. I should have mentioned them in the OP. Scruggs talks about them in his book. They were unbelievable. When Nixon began to discard some of them, we began to make tangible progress.
> 
> Those who say the NVese didn't care about casualties have never seriously studied the war. The NVese cared deeply about casualties, which was why they usually avoided set-piece battles with us, especially big ones.
> 
> All of this is not to say that everything we did in Vietnam was perfect or upright. Nor is it to say that the SVese government was a shining example of democracy. Similarly, the South Korean government that we initially set up was hardly a paragon of virtue, but it was better than the alternative.
Click to expand...


Oh yes.  This is wildly under-stated.    I remember reading a small book by a soldier who was talking about literally watching the North Vietnamese build a bunker.   They watched them do it day by day....  until finally they started shooting at the US troops from the bunker.   Then after being hit by this bunker, only then were they allowed to fire on, and destroy the bunker....

and then absolutely unbelievably.... they would be prevented from firing on the North Vietnamese troops as they rebuilt the bunker.   And the whole thing happened all over again.  They were be required to just sit there and watch the enemy rebuilding a bunker encampment, because they were not allowed to fire on the enemy until the enemy was killing people.

And they our military lost?   No it didn't.  The left-wing in this country refused to let them fight.   Here's a professional boxing tournament.   Let's tie your hands behind your back, and push you into the ring.  Good luck.


----------



## Andylusion

Desperado said:


> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.



Bull. We could have easily won.  We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US.  There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.


----------



## Third Party

Andylusion said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.


----------



## Blackrook

We won the Vietnam War, we had a peace signed by Nixon and it would have held if the fucking Democrats hadn't fucking made him resign.


----------



## Andylusion

Third Party said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
Click to expand...


I would agree with that.   If Hitler had not attacked the Soviets.  If Hitler had listened to the sound advice of his advisors.   Any number of things.

I'm not sure what your point was there.

Regardless, This is debatable on many levels... but I think Stalin intended to rule the world.   I've read a number of books on this, about the cold war.   Stalin would routinely push one border, and then another, and then another.

If we had left Vietnam to fall, then it would have been just a matter of time before Stalin was pushing some other direction.  And then we would have been roped into another fight.  Or we would have let that fall, and Stalin would have pushed somewhere else.

And lets be real about this.....  Stalin killed hundreds of millions of people.   Stalin was just a less charismatic version of Hitler, and he would have had all of Europe under his control, if given the chance.   That's the whole reason he carved up Poland with Hitler.   He wanted control over the world as well.

So I suggest to you that as sucky as Vietnam was, it could have easily been much worse, if Stalin had started another western front battle in Europe.   And that could have easily happened, with all the countries falling under the Soviet bloc, and with most of western Europe wiped out on infrastructure....   World War 3 could have happened in a decade or two from the end of WW2.

I would much rather Stalin bankrupt the Soviet resources in Vietnam, fighting a proxy war.

Of course I understand this is all speculation.   It's impossible to tell what would have happened in the counter factual.  But I think it's rather naive to think if we had just let the Soviets and Mao, dominate in Vietnam, that they would have said "ok! We have all we want!  Let's have a tea party, and celebrate peace!".

No.  I don't believe that anyone reading up on Stalin or Mao, would really believe that was a possible result from letting Vietnam fall.


----------



## harmonica

from Ken Burns book:
1953 Gen. Navarre says: ''victory was near: Now we can see it clearly, ...like the light at the end of the tunnel''
1968 Ambassador Bunker:
''I think we're now beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel''
unwinnable


----------



## rightwinger

Dan Stubbs said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
Click to expand...

Care to provide a specific quote from that book?

Gen Giap never said such a thing


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
Click to expand...

hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
there is resistance everywhere 
he's fighting in North Africa
he is still fighting Britain
Russia is too big--with a larger population


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

we left because it was unwinnable


----------



## JGalt

Dan Stubbs said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
Click to expand...



I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers

We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Click to expand...


Cronkite didn’t lose the war

The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war


----------



## JGalt

rightwinger said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
Click to expand...


There was no "easy victory with minimal casualties" in a war like that. The reason we lost our steam was because the media turned the American people against it.

Jut like they're trying to turn them against President Trump: Similarly in the trade war we're involved in, there will be no easy victory and there will be economic casualties.

But the media has already surrendered this country to the Chinese. They might as well be posing while sitting on Chinese anti-aircraft weapons like Hanoi Jane did.


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no "easy victory with minimal casualties" in a war like that. The reason we lost our steam was because the media turned the American people against it.
> 
> Jut like they're trying to turn them against President Trump: Similarly in the trade war we're involved in, there will be no easy victory and there will be economic casualties.
> 
> But the media has already surrendered this country to the Chinese. They might as well be posing while sitting on Chinese anti-aircraft weapons like Hanoi Jane did.
Click to expand...

We lost our steam because we had no path to victory. The media was negligent in not condemning an unnecessary war from the start


----------



## Camp

JGalt said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Click to expand...

It wasn't Cronkite's words on Feb. 28, 1968 alone that transformed American support for the War. The films of American soldiers stacked like cordwood on the back of a deuce and a half trucks became iconic images of what was happening in Vietnam to American boys. Ten days before Cronkite made his statement, the US military published casualties for Feb.11 thru Feb17. 543 Americans were killed in action in the six-day period.


----------



## Desperado

Andylusion said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. We could have easily won.  We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US.  There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the US efforts in Vietnam were worth the 40,000 American lives lost there?  How did the US benefit from that fiasco?


----------



## Camp

Desperado said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. We could have easily won.  We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US.  There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that the US efforts in Vietnam were worth the 40,000 American lives lost there?  How did the US benefit from that fiasco?
Click to expand...

58,000 plus.


----------



## Third Party

Andylusion said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with that.   If Hitler had not attacked the Soviets.  If Hitler had listened to the sound advice of his advisors.   Any number of things.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point was there.
> 
> Regardless, This is debatable on many levels... but I think Stalin intended to rule the world.   I've read a number of books on this, about the cold war.   Stalin would routinely push one border, and then another, and then another.
> 
> If we had left Vietnam to fall, then it would have been just a matter of time before Stalin was pushing some other direction.  And then we would have been roped into another fight.  Or we would have let that fall, and Stalin would have pushed somewhere else.
> 
> And lets be real about this.....  Stalin killed hundreds of millions of people.   Stalin was just a less charismatic version of Hitler, and he would have had all of Europe under his control, if given the chance.   That's the whole reason he carved up Poland with Hitler.   He wanted control over the world as well.
> 
> So I suggest to you that as sucky as Vietnam was, it could have easily been much worse, if Stalin had started another western front battle in Europe.   And that could have easily happened, with all the countries falling under the Soviet bloc, and with most of western Europe wiped out on infrastructure....   World War 3 could have happened in a decade or two from the end of WW2.
> 
> I would much rather Stalin bankrupt the Soviet resources in Vietnam, fighting a proxy war.
> 
> Of course I understand this is all speculation.   It's impossible to tell what would have happened in the counter factual.  But I think it's rather naive to think if we had just let the Soviets and Mao, dominate in Vietnam, that they would have said "ok! We have all we want!  Let's have a tea party, and celebrate peace!".
> 
> No.  I don't believe that anyone reading up on Stalin or Mao, would really believe that was a possible result from letting Vietnam fall.
Click to expand...

Point is, politicians ran VietNam war like Hitler ran his war.


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
Click to expand...

Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
Click to expand...


Uhhh.... I think that was his point.   I think what the other poster was saying was that if Hitler had let his military run things, they would not have attacked everywhere at the same time.  They might have never attacked Russia, or might have made a better choice in attacking Russia without getting caught in the winter.   While again it would only be speculation, there is a case to be made that if the Germans had simply dug in completely, instead of pushing their attack in the winter, that they might have easily destroyed the Russians.   Remember that Stalin had purged the crap out of his own military, and many of the people in command were inexperienced or incompetent but loyal.

But that was the prior posters point, was that Hitler was getting advice from all his military people, and he was ignoring it.  That's why he was fighting in north Africa, and Britain, and has troops all over the place.


----------



## Andylusion

Desperado said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. We could have easily won.  We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US.  There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are saying that the US efforts in Vietnam were worth the 40,000 American lives lost there?  How did the US benefit from that fiasco?
Click to expand...


No, that's a very strange interpretation, and strange question.

The my statement was not....  "given how things were done, it was worth it".

The statement was made, we could not win.   That is a false statement.   Our military was far superior to the Vietnamese military by every possible measure.   Our military defeated the Vietnamese military, in every engagement.

That does not mean that the way we fought the war, was the right way.  It was most certainly not.

As I said before......      If you play football, and place rules on the game such as, your team is not allowed to move the ball past the 50 yard line, and there is no time limit.    Under those rules, you will lose.   Eventually the enemy with unlimited time, and zero risk of you scoring... they will win the game.

But they didn't win, because their team was better than your team.  They won, because you had stupid rules that prevented you from winning.

That is my point.

So when you say the 40,000 or whatever lives lost......  of course not.    But if you did not tie up our military with the endless rules and restrictions, there would not have been 40,000 lives lost.

The whole reason so many died, is because the left-wing in our country made them die.   We prevent our military from killing the enemy.  Flat out.  What did you think was going to happen when you tell our soldiers that they can't go attack the enemy, but instead walk around in circles while the enemy is trying to kill them? 

Again... go fight a boxing match.   First let me tie your hands behind your back, and then I'll push you into the ring.  Good luck.

If we had simply allowed our military to fight, we would have beaten the North Vietnamese in a year.   No 40K or 50K people dying.  Would not have happened.   The reason we lost all those people, is because we didn't take the fight to the enemy.  We just marched around in circles, and then complained about soldiers dying.  Well duh.  That's what happens when you never attack and defeat the enemy.


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
Click to expand...


You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers
> 
> We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out
Click to expand...


Bull.   Not true.  You are wrong sir.   Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire.   And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.

Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.

Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
Click to expand...

What would you have considered a win?


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers
> 
> We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.   Not true.  You are wrong sir.   Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire.   And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.
> 
> Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.
> 
> Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.
Click to expand...

What restrictions would you have lifted?


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
Click to expand...

hahahahha
so easy the French lost and the US


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers
> 
> We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.   Not true.  You are wrong sir.   Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire.   And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.
> 
> Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.
> 
> Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.
Click to expand...

Bombing did not work in Britain, Japan, or Germany in WW2 with NO restrictions at all
and those countries were much more industrious
the  vote to surrender after the Abombs in Japan was tied
we destroyed all of Japan's major cities = no surrender
bombed Germany night and day
Dresden and Hamburg burnt to the ground = no surrrender

....and Japan attacked US---Vietnam did not attack us.....we really have no reason to have a war against them = the US has no heart in the war = unwinnable


----------



## Third Party

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
Click to expand...

What I used to hear was, "kill them all to make them free".


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers
> 
> We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.   Not true.  You are wrong sir.   Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire.   And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.
> 
> Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.
> 
> Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.
Click to expand...

thank you 


> North to work towards a* ceasefire.*


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?
Click to expand...

proof please


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Click to expand...

then why did the French lose?
why did the Brits lose in Afghanistan 1839 and then the Russians??


----------



## harmonica

Blackrook said:


> We won the Vietnam War, we had a peace signed by Nixon and it would have held if the fucking Democrats hadn't fucking made him resign.


that's why the NVA stormed the palace?


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Click to expand...

from Ken Burns book:
*1953* Gen. Navarre says: ''victory was near: Now we can see it clearly, ..*.like the light at the end of the tunnel'*'
*1968* United States Ambassador Bunker says:
''I think we're now beginning to see the* light at the end of the tunnel*''
do you not see the similarity? 

unwinnable
the North won both wars---against a more powerful country
Walter had nothing to do with it --that's insane
a lot of French were tired of the war *JUST LIKE* a lot of Americans were WITHOUT Walter
same same
.....read my last few posts [with evidence ]--about the last 10 posts--SAME ---same crap of war with the French and the US


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please
Click to expand...

I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.


----------



## Camp

Perhaps the most decisive and controversial propaganda during the war, which, as seen in many posts in this thread still continues today, was that American forces won every battle and the Vietcong and NVA were defeated, in every battle. The problem with that analysis and conclusions is that the Americans and Communist had completely different interpretations and conclusions of what the meaning of "Victory" and "Defeat" means.


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahh
*NO PROOF* --as usual
I don't need to google anything
I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!! 

....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from Ken Burns book:
> *1953* Gen. Navarre says: ''victory was near: Now we can see it clearly, ..*.like the light at the end of the tunnel'*'
> *1968* United States Ambassador Bunker says:
> ''I think we're now beginning to see the* light at the end of the tunnel*''
> do you not see the similarity?
> 
> unwinnable
> the North won both wars---against a more powerful country
> Walter had nothing to do with it --that's insane
> a lot of French were tired of the war *JUST LIKE* a lot of Americans were WITHOUT Walter
> same same
> .....read my last few posts [with evidence ]--about the last 10 posts--SAME ---same crap of war with the French and the US
Click to expand...

Every night, every TV station, showed the day's casualties. Cronkite eloquently put what we were all thinking. That was the only opinion we saw from him and it was a good one, ending with sincere praise for America and Americans. I dare you to find that today. And CBS was at war with the Smother's Brothers, who were anti war-they lost their show.


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.
> 
> 
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahh
> *NO PROOF* --as usual
> I don't need to google anything
> I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!
> 
> ....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up
Click to expand...

SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from Ken Burns book:
> *1953* Gen. Navarre says: ''victory was near: Now we can see it clearly, ..*.like the light at the end of the tunnel'*'
> *1968* United States Ambassador Bunker says:
> ''I think we're now beginning to see the* light at the end of the tunnel*''
> do you not see the similarity?
> 
> unwinnable
> the North won both wars---against a more powerful country
> Walter had nothing to do with it --that's insane
> a lot of French were tired of the war *JUST LIKE* a lot of Americans were WITHOUT Walter
> same same
> .....read my last few posts [with evidence ]--about the last 10 posts--SAME ---same crap of war with the French and the US
Click to expand...


The French lost 50,000 soldiers just like we did


----------



## rightwinger

Camp said:


> Perhaps the most decisive and controversial propaganda during the war, which, as seen in many posts in this thread still continues today, was that American forces won every battle and the Vietcong and NVA were defeated, in every battle. The problem with that analysis and conclusions is that the Americans and Communist had completely different interpretations and conclusions of what the meaning of "Victory" and "Defeat" means.


We used body count as a way to declare victory

They were willing to die for their country
We were unwilling to die for someone else’s country


----------



## WillPower

harmonica said:


> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War



You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.


----------



## WillPower

rightwinger said:


> We used body count as a way to declare victory
> 
> They were willing to die for their country
> We were unwilling to die for someone else’s country



You're a fucking cartoon.


----------



## Third Party

Third Party said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
> he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
> there is resistance everywhere
> he's fighting in North Africa
> he is still fighting Britain
> Russia is too big--with a larger population
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> proof please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahh
> *NO PROOF* --as usual
> I don't need to google anything
> I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!
> 
> ....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?
Click to expand...

 And
soviethammer.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-save..


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?
> 
> 
> 
> proof please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahh
> *NO PROOF* --as usual
> I don't need to google anything
> I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!
> 
> ....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And
> soviethammer.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-save..
Click to expand...

??? that sends me to a bunch of articles --MANY articles--some on NATO
????and it's not even a link--it's not highlighted ..I had to copy and past
!!???


----------



## harmonica

WillPower said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> proof please
> 
> 
> 
> I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahh
> *NO PROOF* --as usual
> I don't need to google anything
> I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!
> 
> ....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And
> soviethammer.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-save..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? that sends me to a bunch of articles --MANY articles--some on NATO
> ????and it's not even a link--it's not highlighted ..I had to copy and past
> !!???
Click to expand...

THAT's why I don't link stuff-no good at it-enough there to get the drift. There are many stories we all have no one heard of-I read a lot of books as did you apparently.


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not dropping things to do research for you. Read 1941-1943 for an in depth view of Operation Barbarossa and the statement I posted was from a TV show on WWII. If you don't take my word, don't respond to my posts. If you are curious, google your ass off.
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahh
> *NO PROOF* --as usual
> I don't need to google anything
> I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!
> 
> ....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And
> soviethammer.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-save..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? that sends me to a bunch of articles --MANY articles--some on NATO
> ????and it's not even a link--it's not highlighted ..I had to copy and past
> !!???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT's why I don't link stuff-no good at it-enough there to get the drift. There are many stories we all have no one heard of-I read a lot of books as did you apparently.
Click to expand...

but the Russians never stopped/never surrendered----that's a *fact*


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
Click to expand...

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahh
> *NO PROOF* --as usual
> I don't need to google anything
> I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!
> 
> ....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up
> 
> 
> 
> SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And
> soviethammer.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-save..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??? that sends me to a bunch of articles --MANY articles--some on NATO
> ????and it's not even a link--it's not highlighted ..I had to copy and past
> !!???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT's why I don't link stuff-no good at it-enough there to get the drift. There are many stories we all have no one heard of-I read a lot of books as did you apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but the Russians never stopped/never surrendered----that's a *fact*
Click to expand...

True-"not one step back". I'm Ukrainian and some German, so I have an interesting interest.


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
Click to expand...

....read the OP again--we are NOT going to nuke them = reality
that is part of the unwinnable = we were not stabbed in the back/etc
we had no heart for the war
etc

OK, so, --you nuke it and then what? 
again--Japan and Germany had MANY cities destroyed/burnt to hell--and they did* NOT* surrender...and they were much more industrious than NVietnam


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....read the OP again--we are NOT going to nuke them = reality
> that is part of the unwinnable = we were not stabbed in the back/etc
> we had no heart for the war
> etc
> 
> OK, so, --you nuke it and then what?
> again--Japan and Germany had MANY cities destroyed/burnt to hell--and they did* NOT* surrender...and they were much more industrious than NVietnam
Click to expand...

For a 15 year old who lost a friend there, what do you think he would say? Try it-you won't like it.


----------



## Camp

Third Party said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
Click to expand...

What would target have been for your nuke?


----------



## harmonica

Camp said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would target have been for your nuke?
Click to expand...

Hanoi--what else?


----------



## Third Party

Camp said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would target have been for your nuke?
Click to expand...

Hanoi


----------



## harmonica

Third Party said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would target have been for your nuke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hanoi
Click to expand...

and then what happens??
the NVs surrender?


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
Click to expand...



You are confused .  The US did not lose.

The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination.  That was a victory.

The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.

Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused .  The US did not lose.
> 
> The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination.  That was a victory.
> 
> The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.
> 
> Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.
Click to expand...

..yes--loss --the *objective* was to keep South Vietnam--
there was no SVietnam starting in 1975
Korean War was a win--there is still a South Korea
hahahhahahahahahah
then why did the French lose?? they didn't have the US congress involved
the North got the US out of SV--that was what they wanted--game over 

you people don't get it.....the North was never going to NOT attack the South


----------



## rightwinger

WillPower said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We used body count as a way to declare victory
> 
> They were willing to die for their country
> We were unwilling to die for someone else’s country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking cartoon.
Click to expand...

How so?

What did I say that you disagree with?


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused .  The US did not lose.
> 
> The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination.  That was a victory.
> 
> The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.
> 
> Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.
Click to expand...

We supported an inept and corrupt South for eight years and they were unable to win WITH us carrying the bulk of the combat load

What makes you think they could have done it without us doing the fighting


----------



## harmonica

......the American people were not going to ALLOW the US to stay indefinitely and have indefinite Americans killed = even AMERICANS were fighting AGAINST the war
...do you see the difference between the war against Japan and the Vietnam War??
...if your heart is not in it--forget it


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
> they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
> they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
> General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused .  The US did not lose.
> 
> The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination.  That was a victory.
> 
> The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.
> 
> Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We supported an inept and corrupt South for eight years and they were unable to win WITH us carrying the bulk of the combat load
> 
> What makes you think they could have done it without us doing the fighting
Click to expand...

..I've pointed this out before....
in the OP--the SV leadership was crap....this is a huge point
the ARVN was crap


----------



## harmonica

so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?


----------



## Camp

harmonica said:


> so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?


All our American POW's are annihilated, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed, populated areas in the north are scattered and dispersed into the countryside, Russia and China increase aid to N. Vietnam tenfold.


----------



## harmonica

Camp said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?
> 
> 
> 
> All our American POW's are annihilated, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed, populated areas in the north are scattered and dispersed into the countryside, Russia and China increase aid to N. Vietnam tenfold.
Click to expand...

....not to mention the US would be vilified/etc by the world--more so than after the conventional bombings where we were vilified
then the NVs would be even more determined


----------



## rightwinger

Camp said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?
> 
> 
> 
> All our American POW's are annihilated, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed, populated areas in the north are scattered and dispersed into the countryside, Russia and China increase aid to N. Vietnam tenfold.
Click to expand...

I prefer those who were not captured


----------



## mikegriffith1

Desperado said:


> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.



I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny. 

And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.


----------



## Camp

harmonica said:


> ......the American people were not going to ALLOW the US to stay indefinitely and have indefinite Americans killed = even AMERICANS were fighting AGAINST the war
> ...do you see the difference between the war against Japan and the Vietnam War??
> ...if your heart is not in it--forget it


American support for the war dropped dramatically in May 1969 after a battle called "Hamburger Hill". While only 46 US troops were reported KIA, over 400 were maimed and wounded. Only 32% of Americans supported the war after Hamburger Hill, in large part because American forces abandoned Hamburger Hill and Hill 937 (Hamburger Hill) and the surrounding area was returned to the NVA.  

Hamburger Hill was a turning point because it showed the failure of American military strategy and the waste of American lives.


----------



## Camp

mikegriffith1 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.
> 
> And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.
Click to expand...

Nixon became Commander in Chief in Jan. 1969. Obviously, you have a hatred of liberals and blame them for anything and everything, but seriously, Nixon was a conservative Republican.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.
> 
> And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.
Click to expand...

....so, we caused millions of deaths when we got involved--this is BETTER than if we hadn't have gotten involved?
....so what if Vietnam fell to the communists?? !!
guess what???!!!-----IT DID fall to the communists--and Laos and Cambodia
and --guess what??--the US is still around and ok


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.
> 
> And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.
Click to expand...

please read the previous posts--even with unrestricted warfare, it was unwinnable


----------



## harmonica

ND


mikegriffith1 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.
> 
> And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.
Click to expand...

....AND with unrestricted warfare, you might have the Chinese and Russians getting directly involved ---making it even MORE unwinnable
...you people and your IFs are ridiculous 
IF, this IF that-----and I can counter all your IFs


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
> not 1 but *TWO* countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would target have been for your nuke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hanoi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then what happens??
> the NVs surrender?
Click to expand...

Let's see from a 15 year old-IT DID NOT HAPPEN, so who cares? The point is we lost GOOD PEOPLE that I KNEW-winning was still losing-that's all. If you weren't there then you would not know.


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.
> 
> And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.
Click to expand...

Tens of millions are doing fine under Communism

We killed millions for no reason. We should have allowed self rule after WWII


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> ND
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was never winnable.
> The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
> American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.
> 
> And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....AND with unrestricted warfare, you might have the Chinese and Russians getting directly involved ---making it even MORE unwinnable
> ...you people and your IFs are ridiculous
> IF, this IF that-----and I can counter all your IFs
Click to expand...

We saw what happened in Korea when we invaded the north


----------



## harmonica

Assistant Sec. of State in 1961 George Ball regarding discussing sending US troops to Vietnam:
''within 5 years we'll have three hundred thousand men in the paddies and jungles and never find them. That *was the French experience''*
bold mine


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Assistant Sec. of State in 1961 George Ball regarding discussing sending US troops to Vietnam:
> ''within 5 years we'll have three hundred thousand men in the paddies and jungles and never find them. That *was the French experience''*
> bold mine


Yeah, I saw the TV movie


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
Click to expand...


At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
And yes, we could have done that.  That war should have lasted less than a year.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
Click to expand...


If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.

The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.

In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.

The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.

Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.

Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.


----------



## Andylusion

Third Party said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I used to hear was, "kill them all to make them free".
Click to expand...


When you hear a joke, consider it as such.

We ditched our allies in South Vietnam, and the north slaughtered civilians.    They literally went around slaughtering civilians throughout the south.   That's the reason we had the Vietnamese boat people.

Don't tell me our troops were engaged in the evil, when the facts show left-wingers were the ones killing everyone.






The people on the left-wing caused that above.  Not us on the right.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
> And yes, we could have done that.  That war should have lasted less than a year.
Click to expand...

We used the same strategy in Korea. Charge in, storm up up to the Yalu River and they have no choice but to surrender. That MacArthur sure knew his military tactics. China came streaming across the border

Same would have happened in Vietnam


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
> And yes, we could have done that.  That war should have lasted less than a year.
Click to expand...

OMG
you're joking, right?


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
> And yes, we could have done that.  That war should have lasted less than a year.
Click to expand...

why would we be invading a country that never attacked the US?
no, we could not have done that--
it's not a* board game*
......the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and put in their OWN government and they still lost
...the NV government would not surrender--they would go somewhere else
--jesus christ! you think we would just go in there and beat the NVs???!!!!!!


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
Click to expand...

then why did the French lose??


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
Click to expand...

500,000 men
airpower--air supremacy
naval power-naval supremacy
mucho $$$$$$$$
and we couldn't defeat them in the South
and you think we could just go into the North and defeat them??!!!
OK


----------



## Flash

The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.

That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.

All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.

However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade. 

Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!


we WON it???!!!
please explain


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!


again--listen up
...South Vietnam's military and leadership were corrupt/etc per my previous posts
...Korea was easy to defend since both sides have an ocean there--whereas you can infiltrate SVietnam much easier
...the North Koreans were NOT attacking the South after our main forces left
...the ARVN were crap and were not going to stop girl scouts with any amount of aid/weaponry/etc


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!


....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I used to hear was, "kill them all to make them free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you hear a joke, consider it as such.
> 
> We ditched our allies in South Vietnam, and the north slaughtered civilians.    They literally went around slaughtering civilians throughout the south.   That's the reason we had the Vietnamese boat people.
> 
> Don't tell me our troops were engaged in the evil, when the facts show left-wingers were the ones killing everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people on the left-wing caused that above.  Not us on the right.
Click to expand...

It was those on the right who slaughtered a million of their countrymen


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why did the French lose??
Click to expand...

No stomach for it, bad leadership, motivated enemy.


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
> And yes, we could have done that.  That war should have lasted less than a year.
Click to expand...

..so if we invade North Vietnam, the Chinese [ or Russia ] won't do anything??
I recall a war in Korea where they gave us an a$$ whipping for going into North Korea


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 500,000 men
> airpower--air supremacy
> naval power-naval supremacy
> mucho $$$$$$$$
> and we couldn't defeat them in the South
> and you think we could just go into the North and defeat them??!!!
> OK
Click to expand...

We could defeat armies in battle
But we could never convince the Vietnamese people to support a corrupt Catholic government supported by white colonialists thousands of miles away


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely true.   It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense....  there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
> 
> And it still persists to this day.   We did not lose.  We left.  There is a difference.  It's like Bobby Fischer.
> 
> View attachment 275813
> Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede?    The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won.  Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
> 
> We left the match.  We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US.   If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets.   You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that.  I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
> 
> You can't win with that.    You have to let the military do the job.  Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
> 
> This is like Mogadishu.  The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job.  The government said.... no, you don't need all that.    So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
> 
> You can't do it that way.  Ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> we left because it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.  It was winnable.  Very easily too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would you have considered a win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
> And yes, we could have done that.  That war should have lasted less than a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so if we invade North Vietnam, the Chinese [ or Russia ] won't do anything??
> I recall a war in Korea where they gave us an a$$ whipping for going into North Korea
Click to expand...

They chased us back to the 38th parallel and inflicted 50,000 deaths. Something we could have obtained early in the war with minimal losses


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
Click to expand...



You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
Click to expand...

hahahha
the Chinese gave the Army an A$$ whipping in 1950 Korea
they decimated RCT 31 east of Chosin
they knocked a whole *CORPS off the peninsula !!!--*a whole *CORPS*
they drove the rest of the US forces BELOW the parallel while kicking their a$$
''decisive Chinese *victory''
Second Phase Offensive - Wikipedia*


> and by November 26 the Chinese were launching destructive counterattacks


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/chinese-counterattacks-in-korea-change-nature-of-war
First Chinese Offensive early November:


> The Americans were* routed,*





> The result was a *disaster. *The Eighth Army was routed again and its South Korean allies destroyed. Thousands of allied troops died and were wounded. As the British military historian Max Hastings described later, *the total disintegration *“resembled the collapse of the French in 1940 to the Nazis and the British at Singapore in 1942 to the Japanese.”


Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
etc etc


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
Click to expand...

he was trying to compare Korea with Vietnam --hahahhahahahahahhahah
you are a bootcamper when it comes to Korean War history --


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
Click to expand...

.....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel


----------



## harmonica

April 1975..these are abandoned boots of ARVN soldiers


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
Click to expand...

NKoreans --------------------US forces Nov 1950--------Chinese attack


----------



## Third Party

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NKoreans --------------------US forces Nov 1950--------Chinese attack
Click to expand...

You realize Nixon resigned because he told North VietNam not to make peace with Johnson-he would give them a better deal. Johnson knew it because Hoover bugged Nixon. LBJ never called out Nixon, but Nixon thought McGovern had something and wanted the break in. Lots of lives and treasure lost to gain nothing more. Real shit show.


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NKoreans --------------------US forces Nov 1950--------Chinese attack
Click to expand...



You are confused.

The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up. Nowadays there is a South Korea.  Trust me.


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
> ..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel
Click to expand...


You are confused.

It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea.  Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective.  The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.

You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
> ..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea.  Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective.  The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.
> 
> You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.
Click to expand...

Dumbass MacArthur did not listen to Truman and charged towards the Yalu River. 
China felt threatened and joined the war
Killed 50,000 Americans


----------



## gtopa1

JoeB131 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
Click to expand...


So you voted for Trump like the Working Class of America voted; well done!!!

Greg


----------



## Picaro

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why did the French lose??
Click to expand...


France was a German conquest in WW II, for one, and in no position to fight against the Soviet Union; you keep trying to pretend the Soviets and Red China played no role, for some reason, which is why your analyses have no bearing at all on realities. You keep pretending that Ho had killed off the independent leaders of the Viet Minh and replaced them with hard line Communists; they were no more 'natives fighting colonial oppressors' than Pocahontas is a 'native American'.


----------



## Picaro

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
> ..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea.  Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective.  The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.
> 
> You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass MacArthur did not listen to Truman and charged towards the Yalu River.
> China felt threatened and joined the war
> Killed 50,000 Americans
Click to expand...


Rubbish. Mao got in the war because Stalin pressured him into it; Stalin then got cold feet and bailed, leaving Mao holding the bag, and then Stalin shook Mao down and made him pay in gold for Soviet military equipment. So yes, you people are indeed Moon Bats.


----------



## Picaro

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> again--listen up
> ...South Vietnam's military and leadership were corrupt/etc per my previous posts
> ...Korea was easy to defend since both sides have an ocean there--whereas you can infiltrate SVietnam much easier
> ...the North Koreans were NOT attacking the South after our main forces left
> ...the ARVN were crap and were not going to stop girl scouts with any amount of aid/weaponry/etc
Click to expand...



More rubbish.


----------



## harmonica

Picaro said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why did the French lose??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France was a German conquest in WW II, for one, and in no position to fight against the Soviet Union; you keep trying to pretend the Soviets and Red China played no role, for some reason, which is why your analyses have no bearing at all on realities. You keep pretending that Ho had killed off the independent leaders of the Viet Minh and replaced them with hard line Communists; they were no more 'natives fighting colonial oppressors' than Pocahontas is a 'native American'.
Click to expand...

??????
ok --that makes sense haha
that's why the French lost!!??  and then the US


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
> ..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea.  Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective.  The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.
> 
> You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.
Click to expand...

....you said we stopped the Chinese--hahahahhahahahaha--no we did not--they kicked our A$$--except for the Marines


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
> 
> That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that.  He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists.  That was always the objective of the war.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
> 
> However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost.  They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
> 
> Once again the Democrats fucked everybody.  Shame!
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NKoreans --------------------US forces Nov 1950--------Chinese attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up. Nowadays there is a South Korea.  Trust me.
Click to expand...

....I put those pictures up so even you could understand--but apparently, you're a dumbass


----------



## harmonica

Picaro said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Stubbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag.   The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
> 
> Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite:  He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cronkite didn’t lose the war
> 
> The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had allowed our military to fight..................  it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
> 
> The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
> 
> In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
> 
> The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him.    So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
> 
> Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam."   Bull crap.  We could have easily won.    You just prevented the military from doing it.
> 
> Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win.   But if you had not done that, we could have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then why did the French lose??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> France was a German conquest in WW II, for one, and in no position to fight against the Soviet Union; you keep trying to pretend the Soviets and Red China played no role, for some reason, which is why your analyses have no bearing at all on realities. You keep pretending that Ho had killed off the independent leaders of the Viet Minh and replaced them with hard line Communists; they were no more 'natives fighting colonial oppressors' than Pocahontas is a 'native American'.
Click to expand...

.....you need to read the previous posts on how both the US and French wars were the SAME.....SAME = unwinnable...2 much more powerful countries defeated by ''peasants'''


----------



## rightwinger

Picaro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea.  That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning.  The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
> ..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> 
> It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea.  Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective.  The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.
> 
> You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass MacArthur did not listen to Truman and charged towards the Yalu River.
> China felt threatened and joined the war
> Killed 50,000 Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubbish. Mao got in the war because Stalin pressured him into it; Stalin then got cold feet and bailed, leaving Mao holding the bag, and then Stalin shook Mao down and made him pay in gold for Soviet military equipment. So yes, you people are indeed Moon Bats.
Click to expand...

 Now you are just making shit up


----------



## mikegriffith1

Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:

What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence

On "The Vietnam War"

The Vietnam War Revisited


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:
> 
> What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence
> 
> On "The Vietnam War"
> 
> The Vietnam War Revisited


What is your point?

Make a point and say what supports your point


----------



## mikegriffith1

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:
> 
> What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence
> 
> On "The Vietnam War"
> 
> The Vietnam War Revisited
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Make a point and say what supports your point
Click to expand...


Uh, well, my point is that the articles debunk the myth that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, and they also respond to Ken Burns' 2017 documentary on the war. How much more clearly can I state things?


----------



## basquebromance

Today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when US soldiers raped and murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians and burned their homes.

Hugh Thompson and his flight crew stopped the massacre by blocking American soldiers and threatening to kill them, saving countless lives

Thompson was called a traitor by many senators and other folks, and got death threats


----------



## basquebromance

http://www.ridenhour.org/images/ron_writings_jesus_was.pdf


----------



## mikegriffith1

basquebromance said:


> Today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when US soldiers raped and murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians and burned their homes.
> 
> Hugh Thompson and his flight crew stopped the massacre by blocking American soldiers and threatening to kill them, saving countless lives
> 
> Thompson was called a traitor by many senators and other folks, and got death threats.



The atrocities that our soldiers committed in Vietnam pale in comparison to the atrocities that the Vietnamese Communist forces committed. Most of our soldiers did not commit war crimes, but liberals smear our entire war effort based on the actions of a minority of our soldiers.

Why don't you guys ever talk about the atrocities that the Communists--i.e., the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese--committed during the Vietnam War? Why don't you talk about the horrors that Vietnam experienced after South Vietnam fell because the Democrats refused to honor our treaty obligation to provide air and logistical support to South Vietnam?

When you liberals talk about the Vietnam War, why does your first instinct seem to be to blame your own country and to ignore the far more serious sins of the Communists? If the Democrats had not traitorously abandoned South Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist and would be much like South Korea is today, not to mention that millions of Vietnamese would not have been killed, imprisoned, or forced to flee by the Communists.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:
> 
> What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence
> 
> On "The Vietnam War"
> 
> The Vietnam War Revisited


that's why the US *AND *the French won....2 great power against tiny North Vietnam


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when US soldiers raped and murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians and burned their homes.
> 
> Hugh Thompson and his flight crew stopped the massacre by blocking American soldiers and threatening to kill them, saving countless lives
> 
> Thompson was called a traitor by many senators and other folks, and got death threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The atrocities that our soldiers committed in Vietnam pale in comparison to the atrocities that the Vietnamese Communist forces committed. Most of our soldiers did not commit war crimes, but liberals smear our entire war effort based on the actions of a minority of our soldiers.
> 
> Why don't you guys ever talk about the atrocities that the Communists--i.e., the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese--committed during the Vietnam War? Why don't you talk about the horrors that Vietnam experienced after South Vietnam fell because the Democrats refused to honor our treaty obligation to provide air and logistical support to South Vietnam?
> 
> When you liberals talk about the Vietnam War, why does your first instinct seem to be to blame your own country and to ignore the far more serious sins of the Communists? If the Democrats had not traitorously abandoned South Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist and would be much like South Korea is today, not to mention that millions of Vietnamese would not have been killed, imprisoned, or forced to flee by the Communists.
Click to expand...

....I'm far from being liberal ---we talk about Americans because we are Americans
....no--- South Vietnam would not exist--the Dems did not abandon the French--how come they lost!!!!???
....the Dems put over 500,000 Americans into Nam--and BILLIONS of $$$$$$$
tanks/carriers/etc...built airfields/ports/etc


> The Department of Defense (DOD) reports that the United States spent about $168 billion (worth around $950 billion in 2011 dollars)


https://thevietnamwar.info/how-much-vietnam-war-cost/

...and most of all--the US gave 50,000 *American lives*
we did NOT abandon SVietnam--that is IDIOCY


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:
> 
> What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence
> 
> On "The Vietnam War"
> 
> The Vietnam War Revisited
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?
> 
> Make a point and say what supports your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, well, my point is that the articles debunk the myth that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, and they also respond to Ken Burns' 2017 documentary on the war. How much more clearly can I state things?
Click to expand...

even Morley Safer said it in 1965--the war was unwinnable
......I've posted more than enough evidence---the most important are the similarities to the French......
BOTH nations lost


----------



## miketx

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?


----------



## harmonica

miketx said:


> How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?


then what? give me a scenario where we would win


----------



## miketx

harmonica said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?
> 
> 
> 
> then what? give me a scenario where we would win
Click to expand...

Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.


----------



## harmonica

miketx said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?
> 
> 
> 
> then what? give me a scenario where we would win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.
Click to expand...

we had a legitimate reason to be at war with Germany and Japan
we did not have a reason to be at war with NVietnam
we DID *not have restraints* in WW2..we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany
most of Japan's cities were bombed to hell--and they still *did not surrender*
...and Japan and Germany were industrial nations


----------



## miketx

harmonica said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?
> 
> 
> 
> then what? give me a scenario where we would win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we had a legitimate reason to be at war with Germany and Japan
> we did not have a reason to be at war with NVietnam
> we DID *not have restraints* in WW2..we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany
> most of Japan's cities were bombed to hell--and they still *did not surrender*
> ...and Japan and Germany were industrial nations
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the topic, now does it?


----------



## basquebromance

"none of the 4 wars in my lifetime came about because America was too strong" - President Reagan

"the only land America took after WWII was to bury its dead" - Colin Powell


----------



## harmonica

miketx said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?
> 
> 
> 
> then what? give me a scenario where we would win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we had a legitimate reason to be at war with Germany and Japan
> we did not have a reason to be at war with NVietnam
> we DID *not have restraints* in WW2..we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany
> most of Japan's cities were bombed to hell--and they still *did not surrender*
> ...and Japan and Germany were industrial nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the topic, now does it?
Click to expand...

yes--it shows 
1.bombing/conventional bombing usually will not win a war
2. countries will not surrender unless invaded 
--if invaded, they have to be destroyed and/or the whole country occupied
etc


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## harmonica

miketx said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?
> 
> 
> 
> then what? give me a scenario where we would win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.
Click to expand...

that's plain bullshit--you did not have to wait to be shot at...


> _ Hathcock engaged a Vietcong pushing a weapon-laden bicycle _


This Marine used a machine gun to make one of the longest sniper kills ever


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## harmonica

Likkmee said:


>


??


----------



## harmonica

Likkmee said:


>


no ads please


----------



## basquebromance

"i'm just an entertainer" - Elvis when asked about Vietnam War


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## Likkmee




----------



## mikegriffith1

Likkmee said:


>



What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.

When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Likkmee said:


>


Cassius Clay=unpatriotic coward


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
Click to expand...

1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
--what reason is there to level the North?
2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
Click to expand...

o yes--the French lost also---gee I wonder why? 
so the French AND the US.......??!!!


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

JoeB131 said:


> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.


Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
Click to expand...

LOL. Why do people think serving your country is a good thing, when in war it merely means serving the needs of the oligarchy?


----------



## Desperado

Define winnable?
Yes the US could have nuked the North but would that have been a win?  
First thing to know is that we should never have been involve there in the first place.  There was absolutely no need for US troops in Vietnam.
Second if you are going to fight a war, Fight to win, no restrictions, keep politicians out of it,
Third Learn from history, something the US has failed at.
Afghanistan is the new Vietnam


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
Click to expand...

You are correct, Ali could have gotten light duty like Elvis. Easy enough to just take the oath and cross the line.

Instead, he chose his religious beliefs over an unjust war. Cost him three years, his title and millions of dollars. 

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Ali.


----------



## rightwinger

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
Click to expand...

When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
Click to expand...

The US government has a very long track record of doing this, but somehow the American people are unaware.


----------



## whitehall

Vietnam was just as winnable as Korea but both missions were thoroughly botched by incompetent administrations.


----------



## harmonica

GOOD thing the politicians LIMITED the military:
1. we didn't need to be there
2.just like Korea, we did not want:
another world war
MORE deaths and casualties--on both sides--including civilians


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The reality is that we won in Vietnam, Our STATED goal was to prevent an insurgency from taking the South. We prevented that, The South fell to an invasion of 25 North Vietnamese Divisions. And the only reason THAT happened was because as usual the democrats prevented the US from honoring her treaties.


----------



## harmonica

whitehall said:


> Vietnam was just as winnable as Korea but both missions were thoroughly botched by incompetent administrations.


.....so why did France loose?  and Britain loose in Afghanistan? AND Russia? -etc?
...it was not winnable
..you people are looking at it one dimensionally/etc


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> Vietnam was just as winnable as Korea but both missions were thoroughly botched by incompetent administrations.


What is a “win”???

Total devastation of the other side and then a lasting peace?

I don’t think either war was “winnable”


----------



## TheParser

I do NOT know whether this info is accurate, but since everyone else is blowing off steam, I shall, too.

I heard a speaker (on C-SPAN?) explain that the Americans "lost" South Vietnam because they did not understand a vital point about the people in South Vietnam.

This speaker claimed that the people in South Vietnam did not necessarily dislike the North Vietnamese, but they did dislike the Chinese people in their society who supposedly controlled the economy.

*****

And don't forget: A few years after the Vietnam War ended, China sent some troops into Vietnam, and the Vietnamese kicked their blanks back to China.


----------



## Scamp

We fell victim to one of the classic blunders.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JGalt said:


> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.



How about next time we don't get involved since it was none of our business.


----------



## harmonica

TheParser said:


> I do NOT know whether this info is accurate, but since everyone else is blowing off steam, I shall, too.
> 
> I heard a speaker (on C-SPAN?) explain that the Americans "lost" South Vietnam because they did not understand a vital point about the people in South Vietnam.
> 
> This speaker claimed that the people in South Vietnam did not necessarily dislike the North Vietnamese, but they did dislike the Chinese people in their society who supposedly controlled the economy.
> 
> *****
> 
> And don't forget: A few years after the Vietnam War ended, China sent some troops into Vietnam, and the Vietnamese kicked their blanks back to China.


..we lost because it was unwinnable
..if you have followed the thread, you would know the SVietnamese government and military  [ hahahah ] was corrupt/unstable/etc
...you can't '''save'' a ''country''/stabilize/help/etc if it's leaders/government/etc is fked up...
etc etc ..all proof and more in the thread
....it is much more complicated than a lot of people make it out to be
'''''we could've invaded the North''''.....they didn't let us win'''' =etc etc bullshit


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do NOT know whether this info is accurate, but since everyone else is blowing off steam, I shall, too.
> 
> I heard a speaker (on C-SPAN?) explain that the Americans "lost" South Vietnam because they did not understand a vital point about the people in South Vietnam.
> 
> This speaker claimed that the people in South Vietnam did not necessarily dislike the North Vietnamese, but they did dislike the Chinese people in their society who supposedly controlled the economy.
> 
> *****
> 
> And don't forget: A few years after the Vietnam War ended, China sent some troops into Vietnam, and the Vietnamese kicked their blanks back to China.
> 
> 
> 
> ..we lost because it was unwinnable
> ..if you have followed the thread, you would know the SVietnamese government and military  [ hahahah ] was corrupt/unstable/etc
> ...you can't '''save'' a ''country''/stabilize/help/etc if it's leaders/government/etc is fked up...
> etc etc ..all proof and more in the thread
> ....it is much more complicated than a lot of people make it out to be
> '''''we could've invaded the North''''.....they didn't let us win'''' =etc etc bullshit
Click to expand...

Read some legitimate history not the version put out by the left by 1971 the South Vietnamese were stable NO insurgency as every supposed VC was actually a NV soldier smuggled into the Country. When Nixon pulled all the troops out he made a deal that if North Vietnam attacked the South we would respond usually with artillery air and naval forces. And we did so in 73 and 74.  The weak kneed Ford would not buck the democrats in Congress that cut all funding to the South in 74. And in 75 when the North again made a probe into South Vietnam the democrats REFUSED to honor the treaty. And Ford did nothing. The North seeing no response from the US went to a full Offensive with 25 divisions to South Vietnam's 12. Short on parts for their tanks short on ammo short on fuel the South still fought for 1 month while the democrats stood by and laughed.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
> 
> 
> 
> We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
Click to expand...

Neither di


harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
> --what reason is there to level the North?
> 2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
> 3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
> 4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims
Click to expand...

_. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to_
The reason is to win a war instead of wasting lives time and money playing around and then wimping out on orders from the politicians. If we must fight we should always fight to win.
_2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose_
The mission was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist imperialism. So we defeat North Vietnam and make it part of South Vietnam and go home. Mission accomplished and happy ending
_3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North_
You never heard of tactical nuclear weapons, daisy cutters, etc?
Maybe not the best option; but better than the one the politicians chose for us.
_4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims_
Neither did you. No, I offered opinion just as you did except that mine is much better informed


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
Click to expand...

You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, Ali could have gotten light duty like Elvis. Easy enough to just take the oath and cross the line.
> 
> Instead, he chose his religious beliefs over an unjust war. Cost him three years, his title and millions of dollars.
> 
> The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Ali.
Click to expand...

Ali was an unAmerican chickenshit. If it was about his religious beliefs (if any) he could easily have gone into the Army and if sent to Vietnam served as a CO medic some of whom received awards (including the highest) for valor. Instead he chose to go to a nice cushy jail cell with a roof, three-hots-and-cot, electricity and running water in an admission of cowardness . I sometimes wonder whatever happened to the man who was sent in his place.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
Click to expand...

Yes

We promised Vietnam they could hold elections in five years. After five years it was obvious Ho Chi Minh would win and we reneged on our promise. Instead, we backed the corrupt and inept regime of Diem.

Commie, Commie, Commie. We killed a million Vietnamese and 60,000 Americans because communism would be so horrible.

Now, after 45 years of communist rule, the world did not come to an end. Vietnam is a big trading partner


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, Ali could have gotten light duty like Elvis. Easy enough to just take the oath and cross the line.
> 
> Instead, he chose his religious beliefs over an unjust war. Cost him three years, his title and millions of dollars.
> 
> The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Ali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ali was an unAmerican chickenshit. If it was about his religious beliefs (if any) he could easily have gone into the Army and if sent to Vietnam served as a CO medic some of whom received awards (including the highest) for valor. Instead he chose to go to a nice cushy jail cell with a roof, three-hots-and-cot, electricity and running water in an admission of cowardness . I sometimes wonder whatever happened to the man who was sent in his place.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS said he had a right to be exempted from service because of his religious beliefs.  Just like thousands were exempted for religious beliefs, college deferments and fake bone spurs.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, Ali could have gotten light duty like Elvis. Easy enough to just take the oath and cross the line.
> 
> Instead, he chose his religious beliefs over an unjust war. Cost him three years, his title and millions of dollars.
> 
> The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Ali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ali was an unAmerican chickenshit. If it was about his religious beliefs (if any) he could easily have gone into the Army and if sent to Vietnam served as a CO medic some of whom received awards (including the highest) for valor. Instead he chose to go to a nice cushy jail cell with a roof, three-hots-and-cot, electricity and running water in an admission of cowardness . I sometimes wonder whatever happened to the man who was sent in his place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS said he had a right to be exempted from service because of his religious beliefs.  Just like thousands were exempted for religious beliefs, college deferments and fake bone spurs.
Click to expand...

In served in Vietnam alongside drafted Conscientious Objectors in combat zones  including air assault missions. They honored their faith and still served their Country as he could have. Just another coward who thought he was special. SCOTUS is welcome to it's opinions I'll keep mine. And he was sent to jail. He was just released about 50 years early.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, Ali could have gotten light duty like Elvis. Easy enough to just take the oath and cross the line.
> 
> Instead, he chose his religious beliefs over an unjust war. Cost him three years, his title and millions of dollars.
> 
> The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Ali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ali was an unAmerican chickenshit. If it was about his religious beliefs (if any) he could easily have gone into the Army and if sent to Vietnam served as a CO medic some of whom received awards (including the highest) for valor. Instead he chose to go to a nice cushy jail cell with a roof, three-hots-and-cot, electricity and running water in an admission of cowardness . I sometimes wonder whatever happened to the man who was sent in his place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS said he had a right to be exempted from service because of his religious beliefs.  Just like thousands were exempted for religious beliefs, college deferments and fake bone spurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In served in Vietnam alongside drafted Conscientious Objectors in combat zones  including air assault missions. They honored their faith and still served their Country as he could have. Just another coward who thought he was special. SCOTUS is welcome to it's opinions I'll keep mine. And he was sent to jail. He was just released about 50 years early.
Click to expand...

Don’t think Ali ever went to jail. 
He had legitimate objections to the war.

As it turned out, his objections were correct and those who prosecuted him were wrong about Vietnam


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
> 
> 
> 
> We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither di
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
> --what reason is there to level the North?
> 2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
> 3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
> 4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to_
> The reason is to win a war instead of wasting lives time and money playing around and then wimping out on orders from the politicians. If we must fight we should always fight to win.
> _2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose_
> The mission was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist imperialism. So we defeat North Vietnam and make it part of South Vietnam and go home. Mission accomplished and happy ending
> _3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North_
> You never heard of tactical nuclear weapons, daisy cutters, etc?
> Maybe not the best option; but better than the one the politicians chose for us.
> _4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims_
> Neither did you. No, I offered opinion just as you did except that mine is much better informed
Click to expand...

..you just fked up...you think in 1 dimensional terms...
1. once we go home--the shit starts again------!!!!!!
2. no--all my links/QUOTES/etc are in my thread ''Vietnam unwinnable'' which I posted--ahahahahhaha
3.nukes----idiocy--pure idiocy...how old are you? 15?


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes
> 
> We promised Vietnam they could hold elections in five years. After five years it was obvious Ho Chi Minh would win and we reneged on our promise. Instead, we backed the corrupt and inept regime of Diem.
> 
> Commie, Commie, Commie. We killed a million Vietnamese and 60,000 Americans because communism would be so horrible.
> 
> Now, after 45 years of communist rule, the world did not come to an end. Vietnam is a big trading partner
Click to expand...

..he doesn't know shit about their history ---


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
Click to expand...

..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc  to '''''communism'''--guess what?????  do you know???   the US is OK!!! 
..so what if they were communist'''?????

..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a trashy, lame excuse for dodging his duty. Ali didn't mind reaping all the benefits of America's free-enterprise system, but when it came his time to serve his country, he played the race card. Ali knew full well that the Army was not going to send him anywhere near Vietnam. We should have deported him to North Vietnam.
> 
> When Elvis Presley got his draft call, he chose to serve. When Ali got his draft call, he chose to dodge the draft, to play the race card, and also to hide behind his supposed conversion to Islam. Humm, yet he was living in sin with a woman after his supposed conversion, in violation of the most basic moral teachings of Islam. When asked about this, he claimed he was "spiritually married" to his shack-up girlfriend. Yeah, uh-huh. It would have taken him about 30 minutes to get married by a justice of the peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct, Ali could have gotten light duty like Elvis. Easy enough to just take the oath and cross the line.
> 
> Instead, he chose his religious beliefs over an unjust war. Cost him three years, his title and millions of dollars.
> 
> The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Ali.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ali was an unAmerican chickenshit. If it was about his religious beliefs (if any) he could easily have gone into the Army and if sent to Vietnam served as a CO medic some of whom received awards (including the highest) for valor. Instead he chose to go to a nice cushy jail cell with a roof, three-hots-and-cot, electricity and running water in an admission of cowardness . I sometimes wonder whatever happened to the man who was sent in his place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS said he had a right to be exempted from service because of his religious beliefs.  Just like thousands were exempted for religious beliefs, college deferments and fake bone spurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In served in Vietnam alongside drafted Conscientious Objectors in combat zones  including air assault missions. They honored their faith and still served their Country as he could have. Just another coward who thought he was special. SCOTUS is welcome to it's opinions I'll keep mine. And he was sent to jail. He was just released about 50 years early.
Click to expand...

..in fact, all that shit we did against communism WASTED tax$ that could have been spent here in the US, helping Americans 
....you don't have any idea how much $$$ were spent in Vietnam---just building/transporting/etc--NOT building crap here....
..not to mention 50,000 *LIVES* --WASTED
---NOT counting the millions$ given and WASTED to France before that !! 

..here--NOT counting all the $$$ wasted in Laos and Cambodia
..it fked the US over:








						How the Vietnam War Affects You Today
					

The Vietnam War was a military campaign between 1959 and 1975. It cost $276 billion and led to a crisis in trust in the government.




					www.thebalance.com
				



.


----------



## rightwinger

Vietnam was a Civil War that we turned into a Cold War.

Rather than allow Vietnam to work out its own conflict, we jumped in after France left and treated it like a colonial entity that answers to a foreign power.

The horror stories of what would happen if Communism took hold did not come to be true.  The real horror was 20 years of war that killed millions and fractured America’s trust in their government.

Today, Vietnam is a stable country and active trading partner with the west. The economy is better than it was under colonial rule and under corrupt S Vietnamese control.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
> 
> 
> 
> We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither di
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
> --what reason is there to level the North?
> 2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
> 3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
> 4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to_
> The reason is to win a war instead of wasting lives time and money playing around and then wimping out on orders from the politicians. If we must fight we should always fight to win.
> _2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose_
> The mission was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist imperialism. So we defeat North Vietnam and make it part of South Vietnam and go home. Mission accomplished and happy ending
> _3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North_
> You never heard of tactical nuclear weapons, daisy cutters, etc?
> Maybe not the best option; but better than the one the politicians chose for us.
> _4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims_
> Neither did you. No, I offered opinion just as you did except that mine is much better informed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you just fked up...you think in 1 dimensional terms...
> 1. once we go home--the shit starts again------!!!!!!
> 2. no--all my links/QUOTES/etc are in my thread ''Vietnam unwinnable'' which I posted--ahahahahhaha
> 3.nukes----idiocy--pure idiocy...how old are you? 15?
Click to expand...

You manage to both dodge and beg the question without saying anything germane. Deflect much? I am 72, I was there and know whereof I speak. If you quote an opinion it is still just an opinion.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
> ..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc  to '''''communism'''--guess what?????  do you know???   the US is OK!!!
> ..so what if they were communist'''?????
> 
> ..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

We never "lost" those places because we never had them to begin with. I thought you claimed you were in favor of the right of the people to choose their own government.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
> ..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc  to '''''communism'''--guess what?????  do you know???   the US is OK!!!
> ..so what if they were communist'''?????
> 
> ..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never "lost" those places because we never had them to begin with. I thought you claimed you were in favor of the right of the people to choose their own government.
Click to expand...

what?
..they all turned communist


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
> 
> 
> 
> We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither di
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
> --what reason is there to level the North?
> 2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
> 3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
> 4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
> a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and* no reason to have the willpower* to_
> The reason is to win a war instead of wasting lives time and money playing around and then wimping out on orders from the politicians. If we must fight we should always fight to win.
> _2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose_
> The mission was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist imperialism. So we defeat North Vietnam and make it part of South Vietnam and go home. Mission accomplished and happy ending
> _3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North_
> You never heard of tactical nuclear weapons, daisy cutters, etc?
> Maybe not the best option; but better than the one the politicians chose for us.
> _4. you don't give much [ none ]  proof to back your claims_
> Neither did you. No, I offered opinion just as you did except that mine is much better informed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..you just fked up...you think in 1 dimensional terms...
> 1. once we go home--the shit starts again------!!!!!!
> 2. no--all my links/QUOTES/etc are in my thread ''Vietnam unwinnable'' which I posted--ahahahahhaha
> 3.nukes----idiocy--pure idiocy...how old are you? 15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You manage to both dodge and beg the question without saying anything germane. Deflect much? I am 72, I was there and know whereof I speak. If you quote an opinion it is still just an opinion.
Click to expand...

unwinnable ...France lost--with MUCHO $$$ help from the US...then the US put 500,000 there-for over 7 years....and ''lost''


----------



## harmonica

....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:


> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.





			Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam


----------



## 9thIDdoc

lly


harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
> ..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc  to '''''communism'''--guess what?????  do you know???   the US is OK!!!
> ..so what if they were communist'''?????
> 
> ..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We never "lost" those places because we never had them to begin with. I thought you claimed you were in favor of the right of the people to choose their own government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what?
> ..they all turned communist
Click to expand...

No they were conquered by the invading North Vietnamese. Occupied and enslaved while we stood back and let it happen despite all our promises.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> No they were conquered by the invading North Vietnamese. Occupied and enslaved while we stood back and let it happen despite all our promises.



We lost 60,000 soldiers and killed over two million Vietnamese over 25 years of war in order to stop the spread of Communism.

With the benefit of 45 years of hindsight, we see a Communist Vietnam that is in better shape than it was under Colonial French and US occupation

Was 25 years of war worth it?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

_MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
Click to expand...

icing on the cake-RIGHT THERE!!


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
Click to expand...

the point???!!
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what 
BOOOOM baby


----------



## harmonica

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
Click to expand...

just like Morley Safer said


----------



## wamose

The stupid war we were fighting all around the Middle East was also unwinnable. Thank God Trump is getting us out of there.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
Click to expand...

Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?

Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

wamose said:


> The stupid war we were fighting all around the Middle East was also unwinnable. Thank God Trump is getting us out of there.


Actually we won in Iraq. Twice. Once again (as in Vietnam) the politicians had us fighting a "police action" since then to help fledgling governments get started. That never ends well.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
Click to expand...

JFK was wrong
The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.

LBJ did what JFK would have


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
Click to expand...

..SVietnam was messed up during and after Diem


----------



## Flash

The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.

Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.

We  militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords.  Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists.  That was the objective all along.

All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.

However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment.  One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.

That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.

The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats.  The assholes fuck up everything they touch.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flash said:


> The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.
> 
> Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.
> 
> We  militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords.  Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists.  That was the objective all along.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.
> 
> However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment.  One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.
> 
> That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.
> 
> The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats.  The assholes fuck up everything they touch.


Exactly


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.
> 
> Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.
> 
> We  militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords.  Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists.  That was the objective all along.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.
> 
> However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment.  One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.
> 
> That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.
> 
> The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats.  The assholes fuck up everything they touch.


that's why there is no South Vietnam ..hahahhahahahah


----------



## harmonica

JFK's quote = nail in the coffin baby!


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
Click to expand...

The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
Click to expand...


After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam. 
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.


----------



## Flash

9thIDdoc said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.
> 
> Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.
> 
> We  militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords.  Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists.  That was the objective all along.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.
> 
> However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment.  One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.
> 
> That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.
> 
> The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats.  The assholes fuck up everything they touch.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
Click to expand...



I wasn't in the 9th Div but I did make my way down to the Delta a couple of times.  That whole country sucked but that area down there sucked the most.


----------



## Flash

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
Click to expand...



You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
Click to expand...

The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
Click to expand...

For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
Click to expand...

Still quoting party propaganda? Truth is it wasn't just the US that called for separation nor was it just the US that ditched the idea of a vote. North Vietnam had no interest in, and would not have allowed, an honest vote. Trying to have one would just have resulted in a bloodbath. North Vietnam had people in place to assure that. The South Vietnamese people had no interest in a vote either.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
Click to expand...

Stupid you certainly ARE, the FACTS are that in 1974 while our treaty was still in force North Vietnam attacked the South and the South BEAT them with out OUR troops just with air and artillery and supplies as provided BY a BINDING FUCKING TREATY. After November when the dems took over Congress they stripped the support ILLEGALLY and President Ford did NOTHING about it. Then in April 75 the North attacked again and when the US did NOTHING they launched an all out INVASION with 25 Divisions. The South had only 12 Divisions. And we were not sending ammo parts or supplies. The South DID NOT fall to an insurgency, the Insurgency was defeated in the Tet offensive in 68. The South Vietnamese Government was stable and successful. The NORTH INVADED get that through that fat thick head of yours. The South Vietnamese FOUGHT for an entire month out numbered over 2 to one and with out adequate supplies parts ammo or fuel. Because your BUDDIES the democrats reneged on a solemn TREATY. The South NEVER asked for our TROOPS in 74 or 75 fuckstain. They just wanted what we PROMISED we would give them and the dems REFUSED.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flash said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.
> 
> Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.
> 
> We  militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords.  Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists.  That was the objective all along.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.
> 
> However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment.  One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.
> 
> That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.
> 
> The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats.  The assholes fuck up everything they touch.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't in the 9th Div but I did make my way down to the Delta a couple of times.  That whole country sucked but that area down there sucked the most.
Click to expand...

Won't get any argument from me. Who were you with?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid you certainly ARE, the FACTS are that in 1974 while our treaty was still in force North Vietnam attacked the South and the South BEAT them with out OUR troops just with air and artillery and supplies as provided BY a BINDING FUCKING TREATY. After November when the dems took over Congress they stripped the support ILLEGALLY and President Ford did NOTHING about it. Then in April 75 the North attacked again and when the US did NOTHING they launched an all out INVASION with 25 Divisions. The South had only 12 Divisions. And we were not sending ammo parts or supplies. The South DID NOT fall to an insurgency, the Insurgency was defeated in the Tet offensive in 68. The South Vietnamese Government was stable and successful. The NORTH INVADED get that through that fat thick head of yours. The South Vietnamese FOUGHT for an entire month out numbered over 2 to one and with out adequate supplies parts ammo or fuel. Because your BUDDIES the democrats reneged on a solemn TREATY. The South NEVER asked for our TROOPS in 74 or 75 fuckstain. They just wanted what we PROMISED we would give them and the dems REFUSED.
Click to expand...

Absolute truth.


----------



## Flash

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
Click to expand...



You fucking moron.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.

Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.


----------



## Flash

9thIDdoc said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.
> 
> Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.
> 
> We  militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords.  Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists.  That was the objective all along.
> 
> All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.
> 
> However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment.  One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.
> 
> That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.
> 
> The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats.  The assholes fuck up everything they touch.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't in the 9th Div but I did make my way down to the Delta a couple of times.  That whole country sucked but that area down there sucked the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't get any argument from me. Who were you with?
Click to expand...



I was over there from November 1967 until March 1970.  I was with several different detachments but on my uniform I have hanging up in the closet I have the Americal patch.


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking moron.  You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.
> 
> Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection and I notice the lack of details.

It amazes me in the degree that some continue the fantasy of.....we could have won if we only fought a little harder and a little longer.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
Click to expand...

plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking moron.  You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.
> 
> Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
Click to expand...

so that's your proof??  good thing you are not a lawyer


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
Click to expand...

The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.  

The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
Click to expand...

..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it


----------



## Flash

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking moron.  You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.
> 
> Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection and I notice the lack of details.
> 
> It amazes me in the degree that some continue the fantasy of.....we could have won if we only fought a little harder and a little longer.
Click to expand...



You simply don't know jackshit about you are talking about.

Watching movies about Vietnam and reading what is written on placards at an antiwar rally doesn't give you the knowledge you need to articulate intelligibly on the subject.

You don't have the basic understanding of history to say anything intelligible.  You uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about History as you do Economics, Climate Science, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
Click to expand...



You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.

However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.     

You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
Click to expand...

hahahahha
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking moron.  You have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.
> 
> Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice deflection and I notice the lack of details.
> 
> It amazes me in the degree that some continue the fantasy of.....we could have won if we only fought a little harder and a little longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't know jackshit about you are talking about.
> 
> Watching movies about Vietnam and reading what is written on placards at an antiwar rally doesn't give you the knowledge you need to articulate intelligibly on the subject.
> 
> You don't have the basic understanding of history to say anything intelligible.  You uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about History as you do Economics, Climate Science, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that yet have nothing of substance to add


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
Click to expand...

We did not “win” as we never established what victory would be.

The Paris Peace accords was an opportunity to withdraw from Vietnam without being attacked in the process. Any delusions that S Vietnam would do just fine without our forces protecting them was just fantasy.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did not “win” as we never established what victory would be.
> 
> The Paris Peace accords was an opportunity to withdraw from Vietnam without being attacked in the process. Any delusions that S Vietnam would do just fine without our forces protecting them was just fantasy.
Click to expand...

..good call .....
...I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics


----------



## rightwinger

harmonica said:


> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics



If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?

They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.

Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahha
> correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
Click to expand...



Thanks to the filthy Democrats


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> Thanks to the filthy Democrats



Thanks to a corrupt and thoroughly inept South Vietnamese Government.

Why wasn’t that Government supported by the people?

They were puppets of the West
They were Christians in a Buddhist country
They represented the rich and powerful
They were personally corrupt. 
They appointed Generals based on political connections.


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahha
> correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the filthy Democrats
Click to expand...

the French Dems also??  hahahhahahahahaha


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
Click to expand...

Chump change compared to the billions Obama gave to terrorists and their supporters.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chump change compared to the billions Obama gave to terrorists and their supporters.
Click to expand...

..that's 143 MILLION in today's $$..and I'm a Trump supporter


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
Click to expand...

History is what it is. Coming up with revisionist propaganda doesn't change that. Why not mention the Japanese that we helped kick out? Why not note that France was  occupied by the Germans? Or that North Vietnam occupied parts of Laos and Cambodia as well as now occupying South Vietnam?


----------



## Flash

harmonica said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahha
> correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the filthy Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the French Dems also??  hahahhahahahahaha
Click to expand...



The French didn't pass the Case-Church Budget Amendment you moron.


----------



## harmonica

Flash said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahha
> correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to the filthy Democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the French Dems also??  hahahhahahahahaha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The French didn't pass the Case-Church Budget Amendment you moron.
Click to expand...

and they lost.....


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History is what it is. Coming up with revisionist propaganda doesn't change that. Why not mention the Japanese that we helped kick out? Why not note that France was  occupied by the Germans? Or that North Vietnam occupied parts of Laos and Cambodia as well as now occupying South Vietnam?
Click to expand...

ok--that makes sense


----------



## RetiredGySgt

For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.


----------



## harmonica

..I finally got to go to the library Thursday because of C19/etc....so I got this book just for the heck of it:
_Anatomy of Victory: Why the US triumphed in WW2, Fought a Stalemate in Korea, and Lost in Vietnam_ by John Caldwell
...to add to the already undeniable proof already posted, here is more:
Col. Harry Summers:
''''Our ...strategy of counterinsurgency blinded us to the fact that the guerrilla war was tactical and not strategic. ......to wear down superior U.S. military forces.......the effect was a failure to isolate the battlefield...''''


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.


hahhahahahahaha
....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
...the government was corrupt and the military also
...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
the government was crap = UNWINNABLE


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
Click to expand...

Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.


.....read a _Bright Shining Lie _by Vann
...at the battle of Ap Bac, the SVietnamese had ALL the advantages
troop strength
APCs
CHOPPERS!!!!!
---and still lost to the VC


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
Click to expand...

.... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
Click to expand...

You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
Click to expand...

..Ap Bac
....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language








						Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
Click to expand...

.....I'm not liberal ----hahahahahahhahhha........ask any member
....your post means it was unwinnable


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....I'm not liberal ----hahahahahahhahhha........ask any member
> ....your post means it was unwinnable
Click to expand...

Nope the FACTS are if we had no reneged on our treaty South Vietnam would not have fallen. They successfully stopped the North in 74 and would have stopped them again in 75 if we had not pulled the rug out from under them. The democrats reneged on a BINDING TREATY. And here you are supporting that behavior. a Traitor to the end I guess, enjoy the hell you are destined to go to.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.


South Vietnam had the most modern military equipment in the world and had been trained to fight for decades by US forces.
Still, they folded like a cheap tent once the US forces left.

More money was not going to save them


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....I'm not liberal ----hahahahahahhahhha........ask any member
> ....your post means it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope the FACTS are if we had no reneged on our treaty South Vietnam would not have fallen. They successfully stopped the North in 74 and would have stopped them again in 75 if we had not pulled the rug out from under them. The democrats reneged on a BINDING TREATY. And here you are supporting that behavior. a Traitor to the end I guess, enjoy the hell you are destined to go to.
Click to expand...

hahhahahah-I guess we should've stayed there 20 MORE years--and made it a state???!!! hahahahahhahahaha
..how long should we have stayed?


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> South Vietnam had the most modern military equipment in the world and had been trained to fight for decades by US forces.
> Still, they folded like a cheap tent once the US forces left.
> 
> More money was not going to save them
Click to expand...

and that is backed up in the book I mentioned.....


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....I'm not liberal ----hahahahahahhahhha........ask any member
> ....your post means it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope the FACTS are if we had no reneged on our treaty South Vietnam would not have fallen. They successfully stopped the North in 74 and would have stopped them again in 75 if we had not pulled the rug out from under them. The democrats reneged on a BINDING TREATY. And here you are supporting that behavior. a Traitor to the end I guess, enjoy the hell you are destined to go to.
Click to expand...

please stop posting so much evidence ..I can't keep up with it
hahahahahhahahaha


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
Click to expand...

Actually South Vietnam sold out the US for over a decade.
They took or military aid and squandered it in corrupt deals for personal wealth. They refused to take a leading role in defending their country and relied on US forces to carry the load.

Once the US pulled out they collapsed. The American people had enough


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually South Vietnam sold out the US for over a decade.
> They took or military aid and squandered it in corrupt deals for personal wealth. They refused to take a leading role in defending their country and relied on US forces to carry the load.
> 
> Once the US pulled out they collapsed. The American people had enough
Click to expand...

exactly = unwinnable


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....I'm not liberal ----hahahahahahhahhha........ask any member
> ....your post means it was unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope the FACTS are if we had no reneged on our treaty South Vietnam would not have fallen. They successfully stopped the North in 74 and would have stopped them again in 75 if we had not pulled the rug out from under them. The democrats reneged on a BINDING TREATY. And here you are supporting that behavior. a Traitor to the end I guess, enjoy the hell you are destined to go to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahah-I guess we should've stayed there 20 MORE years--and made it a state???!!! hahahahahhahahaha
> ..how long should we have stayed?
Click to expand...

Again for the truly STUPID we left they defended it themselves in 73 and 74 and would have in 75 if we hadn't cut off their supply line. God you prove just how fucking stupid you are with each new post.


----------



## Dick Foster

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Basically we were on the wrong side in Vietnam and the whole damn thing started as far back as Wilson but we were far too busy sucking up to the fucking frogs so we were sucked in on the wrong frigging side by all the assholes from Wilton right on up through LBJ. It took Nixon to get us out of it. Ho modeled his constitution after our own and he came to us for help first, but oh no, we had to side with the god damn arrogant assed French froggy assholes. The useless fucks. I'm no fan of the French as you can probably gather.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually South Vietnam sold out the US for over a decade.
> They took or military aid and squandered it in corrupt deals for personal wealth. They refused to take a leading role in defending their country and relied on US forces to carry the load.
> 
> Once the US pulled out they collapsed. The American people had enough
Click to expand...

South Vietnam was not overrun until after the US had withdrawn AND after the US congress cut our aid and supply while the USSR and China continued to generously resupply and equip North Vietnam. South Vietnam could and did fight North Vietnam to a standstill but it was far over matched opposing all three without help. Help we had promised then treacherously withdrew. We abandoned an ally much to our shame. In any case please explain exactly how we lost a war after we had withdrawn from it. You might also provide evidence of your other delusional claims. Fat chance.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.
> 
> 
> 
> hahhahahahahaha
> ....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
> ...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
> ...the government was corrupt and the military also
> ...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
> the government was crap = UNWINNABLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... you were not in the USMC.....you are very unprofessional and use the language of a 14 year old...definitely not a Gunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not understand simple FACTS that are presented you are what 10? 9? Does your mommy know you get on the computer? As for my service since you never served ya fucking coward go cry in mommy's lap ya baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Ap Bac
> ....I back up my claims with evidence..you back up yours with childish language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From 1972 to March 1975 South Vietnam held their Country with OUT US troops ya moron. We refused to honor a TREATY and sold out South Vietnam and allowed the North to conquer them all because you liberals are fuck stains and cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually South Vietnam sold out the US for over a decade.
> They took or military aid and squandered it in corrupt deals for personal wealth. They refused to take a leading role in defending their country and relied on US forces to carry the load.
> 
> Once the US pulled out they collapsed. The American people had enough
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam was not overrun until after the US had withdrawn AND after the US congress cut our aid and supply while the USSR and China continued to generously resupply and equip North Vietnam. South Vietnam could and did fight North Vietnam to a standstill but it was far over matched opposing all three without help. Help we had promised then treacherously withdrew. We abandoned an ally much to our shame. In any case please explain exactly how we lost a war after we had withdrawn from it. You might also provide evidence of your other delusional claims. Fat chance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but South Vietnam had more help from the US than they deserved.  They couldnt defeat N Vietnam forces with full US support on the ground, in the air and at sea.  What makes you think that the US throwing more money at them was going to save them?

I never said we lost the war. We took our ball and went home. Call it what you wish.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
Click to expand...

Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.
Click to expand...


Bad behavior on both sides of the border. Also bad behavior on our side.

Ho Chi Minh tried working with the Western Powers after WWI and WWII. We laughed at the idea that Vietnamese were capable of self rule.

The communists offered a better deal than we did in that regard.

Regardless, we killed over two million Vietnamese trying to protect them from Communism.

That was much worse than a Communist Vietnam turned out to be


----------



## 9thIDdoc

From the New York Times

Opinion
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
*The War We Could Have Won*
By Stephen J. Morris
WASHINGTON - THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people. However, 30 years after the war's end, the reasons for its outcome remain a matter of dispute.
The most popular explanation among historians and journalists is that the defeat was a result of American policy makers' cold-war-driven misunderstanding of North Vietnam's leaders as dangerous Communists. In truth, they argue, we were fighting a nationalist movement with great popular support. In this view, "our side," South Vietnam, was a creation of foreigners and led by a corrupt urban elite with no popular roots. Hence it could never prevail, not even with a half-million American troops, making the war "unwinnable."
This simple explanation is repudiated by powerful historical evidence, both old and new. Its proponents mistakenly base their conclusions on the situation in Vietnam during the 1950's and early 1960's and ignore the changing course of the war (notably, the increasing success of President Richard Nixon's Vietnamization strategy) and the evolution of South Vietnamese society (in particular the introduction of agrarian reforms).
For all the claims of popular support for the Vietcong insurgency, far more South Vietnamese peasants fought on the side of Saigon than on the side of Hanoi. The Vietcong were basically defeated by the beginning of 1972, which is why the North Vietnamese launched a huge conventional offensive at the end of March that year. During the Easter Offensive of 1972 -- at the time the biggest campaign of the war -- the South Vietnamese Army was able to hold onto every one of the 44 provincial capitals except Quang Tri, which it regained a few months later. The South Vietnamese relied on American air support during that offensive.
If the United States had provided that level of support in 1975, when South Vietnam collapsed in the face of another North Vietnamese offensive, the outcome might have been at least the same as in 1972. But intense lobbying of Congress by the antiwar movement, especially in the context of the Watergate scandal, helped to drive cutbacks of American aid in 1974. Combined with the impact of the world oil crisis and inflation of 1973-74, the results were devastating for the south. As the triumphant North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Van Tien Dung, wrote later, President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam was forced to fight "a poor man's war."
Even Hanoi's main patron, the Soviet Union, was convinced that a North Vietnamese military victory was highly unlikely. Evidence from Soviet Communist Party archives suggests that, until 1974, Soviet military intelligence analysts and diplomats never believed that the North Vietnamese would be victorious on the battlefield. Only political and diplomatic efforts could succeed. Moscow thought that the South Vietnamese government was strong enough to defend itself with a continuation of American logistical support. The former Soviet chargé d'affaires in Hanoi during the 1970's told me in Moscow in late 1993 that if one looked at the balance of forces, one could not predict that the South would be defeated. Until 1975, Moscow was not only impressed by American military power and political will, it also clearly had no desire to go to war with the United States over Vietnam. But after 1975, Soviet fear of the United States dissipated.


Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in

During the war the Soviets despised their North Vietnamese "friends" (the term of confidential bureaucratic reference, rather than "comrades"). Indeed, Henry A. Kissinger's accounts of his dealings, as Nixon's national security adviser, with President Thieu are models of respect when compared with the bitter Soviet accounts of their difficulties with their counterparts.
In secret internal reports, Hanoi-based Soviet diplomats regularly complained about the deceitfulness of the North Vietnamese, who concealed strategic planning from their more powerful patron. In a 1972 report to Moscow, the Soviet ambassador even complained that although Marshal Pavel Batitsky, commander of the Soviet Air Defense Forces, had visited Hanoi earlier that year and completed a major military aid agreement, North Vietnamese leaders did not inform him of the imminent launch date of their Easter Offensive.
What is also clear from Soviet archival sources is that those who believed that North Vietnam had more than national unification on its mind were right: Its leaders were imbued with a sense of their ideological mission -- not only to unify Vietnam under Communist Party rule, but also to support the victory of Communists in other nations. They saw themselves as the outpost of world revolution in Southeast Asia and desired to help Communists in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and elsewhere.
*Editors’ Picks*
*Commuting, and Confronting History, on a Remote Canadian Railway*
*Two Chefs Moved to Rural Minnesota to Expand on Their Mission of Racial Justice*
*Two Wealthy Sri Lankan Brothers Became Suicide Bombers. But Why?*
Continue reading the main story

Soviet archives show that after the war ended in 1975, with American power in retreat, Hanoi used part of its captured American arsenal to support Communist revolutions around the world. In 1980 some of these weapons were shipped via Cuba to El Salvador. This dimension of Vietnamese behavior derived from a deep commitment to the messianic internationalism of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Vietnam today is not the North Vietnam of 1955, 1965 or 1975. Like post-Mao China it has retreated from totalitarianism to authoritarianism. It has reformed its economy and its foreign policy to become more integrated into the world. But those changes were not inevitable and would not necessarily have occurred had Mikhail Gorbachev not ascended to power in Moscow, and had the Soviet Union and its empire not collapsed. Nor would these changes necessarily have occurred had China not provided a new cultural model for Vietnam to follow, as it has for centuries.
Precisely because Vietnam has changed for the better, we need to recognize what a profoundly ideological and aggressive totalitarian regime we faced three, four and five decades ago. And out of respect for the evidence of history, we need to recognize what happened in the 1970's and why.
In 1974-75, the United States snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Hundreds of thousands of our Vietnamese allies were incarcerated, and more than a million driven into exile. The awesome image of the United States was diminished, and its enemies were thereby emboldened, drawing the United States into new conflicts by proxy in Afghanistan, Africa and Latin America. And the bitterness of so many American war veterans, who saw their sacrifices so casually demeaned and unnecessarily squandered, haunts American society and political life to this day.
Op-Ed Contributor Stephen J. Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, is writing a book on the Vietnam War in the Nixon years.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Link for above: Opinion | The War We Could Have Won


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
> 
> 
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. *They are the ones who have to win* it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
> From your link:
> 
> _MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the point???!!
> even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
> BOOOOM baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just like Morley Safer said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullspit. What part of:  _*PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can.*_ do you not understand?
> 
> Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK was wrong
> The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
> S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed  to fail.
> 
> LBJ did what JFK would have
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
> When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For crying out loud
> 
> We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.
> 
> More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.
> 
> It was never winnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.
> 
> The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  But we did win.  We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam.  That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
> 
> However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
> 
> You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism.  Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree.  However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective.  Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did not “win” as we never established what victory would be.
> 
> The Paris Peace accords was an opportunity to withdraw from Vietnam without being attacked in the process. Any delusions that S Vietnam would do just fine without our forces protecting them was just fantasy.
Click to expand...

*Easter Offensive*

Views *2,040,242*Updated *Jun 28 2020

Easter Offensive* (1972).Knowing that the United States was losing its will to continue the war in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese government in Hanoi decided in January 1972 to attack South Vietnam and thus started the war's largest battle to date. American intelligence knew Hanoi's general intentions, but was wrong on the estimates of the time and place of the offensive. On 30 March 1972—three days before Easter—the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) committed fourteen divisions backed by several hundred tanks and heavy artillery to a three‐pronged assault to gain territory and possibly win the war outright.

NVA Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, directed spearheads toward Quang Tri and Hué in the northern provinces of South Vietnam, Kontum in the central highlands, and An Loc northwest of Saigon. Initially, South Vietnamese resistance failed, but American advisers such as John Paul Vann and Maj. Gen. James Hollingsworth helped stabilize the ground defense, supported by American airpower and naval bombardment.

Still, in early May, Gen. Creighton Abrams, American commander in Vietnam, cabled Washington that Saigon had lost the will to fight and the war might be soon lost. The NVA had taken Quang Tri and had put Hué, Kontum, and An Loc under siege. The situation at An Loc was particularly dangerous. If it fell, there was little standing between Hanoi's forces and Saigon. President Richard M. Nixon authorized a major buildup of American airpower, plus heavy air strikes against Hanoi and Haiphong for the first time since 1968. On 8 May, with Saigon fighting for its life, the U.S. Navy mined Haiphong Harbor to block the flow of Soviet supplies. Ultimately, the South Vietnamese, supported by American airpower, drove the NVA back from the cities and recaptured Quang Tri.

The Easter Offensive cost the NVA dearly. Americans estimated Hanoi lost 100,000 men killed and 400 tanks destroyed. The failure to end the war on the battlefield undoubtedly prodded Hanoi toward the negotiations that led to the Paris Peace Agreements in January 1973. Three years later, forced to fight without American aid, Saigon could not duplicate its defensive victories of 1972.

During the Easter Offensive, American forces for the first time employed sizable numbers of precision‐guided munitions, “smart weapons.” U.S. warplanes used wire‐guided bombs to destroy North Vietnamese bridges that had withstood years of attack by conventional ordnance, and American helicopter gunships and South Vietnamese infantry employed TOW antitank weapons with deadly effect.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad behavior on both sides of the border. Also bad behavior on our side.
> 
> Ho Chi Minh tried working with the Western Powers after WWI and WWII. We laughed at the idea that Vietnamese were capable of self rule.
> 
> The communists offered a better deal than we did in that regard.
> 
> Regardless, we killed over two million Vietnamese trying to protect them from Communism.
> 
> That was much worse than a Communist Vietnam turned out to be
Click to expand...

The Communists didn't "offer" anything. They demanded and forced. No self-determination allowed.
We should regret killing enemy troops trying to kill us? I certainly don't.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad behavior on both sides of the border. Also bad behavior on our side.
> 
> Ho Chi Minh tried working with the Western Powers after WWI and WWII. We laughed at the idea that Vietnamese were capable of self rule.
> 
> The communists offered a better deal than we did in that regard.
> 
> Regardless, we killed over two million Vietnamese trying to protect them from Communism.
> 
> That was much worse than a Communist Vietnam turned out to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Communists didn't "offer" anything. They demanded and forced. No self-determination allowed.
> We should regret killing enemy troops trying to kill us? I certainly don't.
Click to expand...

Nobody is blaming you

I blame those who hid behind false patriotism to get us into a senseless war


----------



## 9thIDdoc

__





						Massacre at Huế - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*Massacre at Huế*


Huế MassacreLocationHuế, Thừa Thiên-Huế Province of South VietnamDateJanuary 30 - February 28, 1968TargetCivilians and prisoners of warAttack typeMassacreDeaths2,800 – 6,000[1]PerpetratorsViet Cong and North Vietnamese Army

hide

v
t
e
Massacres of the Vietnam War
The *Huế Massacre* (Vietnamese: _Thảm sát tại Huế Tết Mậu Thân_, or _Thảm sát Tết Mậu Thân ở Huế_, lit. translation: "Tết Offensive Massacre in Huế") is the name given to the summary executions and mass killings perpetrated by the Việt Cộng (VC) and People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) during their capture, occupation and later withdrawal from the city of Huế during the Tết Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War.
The Battle of Huế began on January 31, 1968, and lasted a total of 26 days. During the months and years that followed, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Huế. Victims included women, men, children, and infants.[2] The estimated death toll was between 2,800 and 6,000 civilians and prisoners of war,[1][3] or 5–10% of the total population of Huế.[4] The Republic of Vietnam released a list of 4,062 victims identified as having been either murdered or abducted.[5][6] Victims were found bound, tortured, and sometimes buried alive. Many victims were also clubbed to death.[7][8][9]
A number of U.S. and South Vietnamese authorities as well as a number of journalists who investigated the events took the discoveries, along with other evidence, as proof that a large-scale atrocity had been carried out in and around Huế during its four-week occupation. The killings were perceived as part of a large-scale purge of a whole social stratum, including anyone friendly to American forces in the region. The Massacre at Huế came under increasing press scrutiny later, when press reports alleged that South Vietnamese "revenge squads" had also been at work in the aftermath of the battle, searching out and executing citizens that had supported the communist occupation.[10][11] In 2017, Ben Kiernan described the mas as "possibly the largest atrocity of the war."

But I guess the South Vietnamese wanted this. Don't you?


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


The French should of been a lesson? You don't know the history of Vietnam. Not in the least.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The French should of been a lesson? You don't know the history of Vietnam. Not in the least.
Click to expand...

hahahha
1. I post links and evidence--you post NOTHING but babble
2. yes--the French should've been the lesson to stay out of Nam
3. FYI--we lost
4.yes---history--you need to learn some
Britain lost in Afghanistan---then Russia


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad behavior on both sides of the border. Also bad behavior on our side.
> 
> Ho Chi Minh tried working with the Western Powers after WWI and WWII. We laughed at the idea that Vietnamese were capable of self rule.
> 
> The communists offered a better deal than we did in that regard.
> 
> Regardless, we killed over two million Vietnamese trying to protect them from Communism.
> 
> That was much worse than a Communist Vietnam turned out to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Communists didn't "offer" anything. They demanded and forced. No self-determination allowed.
> We should regret killing enemy troops trying to kill us? I certainly don't.
Click to expand...

....well---the US competes with South Korea and Vietnam economically....my company buys parts made in South Korea and Vietnam.....we should've stayed out of both, then kept our distance--but now, American companies got screwed and are getting screwed


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.
Click to expand...

South Vietnam:
''''' it was anti-democratic, autocratic, corrupt and nepotistic.''''

'''''The Agroville resettlements *caused enormous social and economic disruption*. Families were separated, shifted from familiar territory and forced to abandon important spiritual sites, such as temples and ancestral graves.'''''

'''''' Diem established an *autocratic* regime that was staffed at the highest levels by members of his* own family.''*'''
----*-WORSE* than communism

etc etc
AND the link*S*!!! hahahhahahahaha--both links crosscheck each other








						South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem
					

The Geneva Accords created North and South Vietnam as temporary states. In reality, both had already become separate national entities.



					alphahistory.com
				











						Ngo Dinh Diem | Facts, Vietnam War, Significance, & Death
					

Ngo Dinh Diem,  (born January 3, 1901, Quang Binh province, northern Vietnam—died November 2, 1963, Cho Lon, South Vietnam [now in Vietnam]), Vietnamese political leader who served as president, with dictatorial powers, of what was then South Vietnam, from 1955 until his assassination...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .



Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying 

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.  

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
Click to expand...

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
Click to expand...

..so we flatten North Vietnam and we have the SAME problem as in the Korean war---war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jesus christ----you want another war with China!!!!!!!!


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
Click to expand...

.......the North Vietnamese negotiated that the US gets *out of Vietnam*---not surrender


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
Click to expand...

ending the war in 1965 with bombing!!!!!!!?????????????
..this proves you don't know history--and you haven't followed the thread or don't understand:
we destroyed all of Japan's major cities---and bombed the shit out of Germany--they did not surrender until the Allies were in Berlin and we used the Abombs---even after the Abombs, the vote for surrender was TIED 3-3 !! 
.....wrong and double wrong--the war would not have been war by bombing...please read some history


----------



## harmonica

..you people are thinking like it's a board game = unrealistically
..there are reactions to military actions--politically and militarily
..you are think one-dimensionally


----------



## harmonica

..so we commit to total war on North Vietnam for WHAT reason???!!!!!


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.



That is what Gen MacArthur said.
In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.

That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American soldiers

We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it


You stated you post links. That is the same as stating, "I dont know what I am talking about it but I will back my opinion up with a google search cause I know I am right".

You did not start this OP with anything more than your opinion. I do not see any source or link here. I am simply looking through your posts about France and finding you have only expressed an opinion. Which is wrong. As this one is. 

The "Powerful" French? Again, you prove you know nothing about Vietnam.


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants. 

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!


Yes you are right, but 7 years is so short of the actual years of our involvement you prove you know nothing about Vietnam.


----------



## healthmyths

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Evidently you never heard of *SEATO....*look it up!


----------



## harmonica

healthmyths said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently you never heard of *SEATO....*look it up!
Click to expand...

what's your point?


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..so we commit to total war on North Vietnam for WHAT reason???!!!!!


Total war? Again you prove you know nothing. Here you exaggerate our involvement. We did not use our nuclear bombs. We did not bomb Hanoi. We did not follow the Weapons Supply Chain to it's source. You can not describe Vietnam as total war. It was not. That you do shows you only have your opinion.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
Click to expand...

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
Click to expand...


Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.

Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right, but 7 years is so short of the actual years of our involvement you prove you know nothing about Vietnam.
Click to expand...

hahahahhahah???!!!!!!! are you shitting me? 
you don't see the word *OVER* ??!!!


----------



## rightwinger

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..so we commit to total war on North Vietnam for WHAT reason???!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Total war? Again you prove you know nothing. Here you exaggerate our involvement. We did not use our nuclear bombs. We did not bomb Hanoi. We did not follow the Weapons Supply Chain to it's source. You can not describe Vietnam as total war. It was not. That you do shows you only have your opinion.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer his question.

What do you think total war would have achieved?


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ending the war in 1965 with bombing!!!!!!!?????????????
> ..this proves you don't know history--and you haven't followed the thread or don't understand:
> we destroyed all of Japan's major cities---and bombed the shit out of Germany--they did not surrender until the Allies were in Berlin and we used the Abombs---even after the Abombs, the vote for surrender was TIED 3-3 !!
> .....wrong and double wrong--the war would not have been war by bombing...please read some history


Vietnam was not Germany, equating the two simply shows you really, really, don't know anything about Vietnam.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..so we commit to total war on North Vietnam for WHAT reason???!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Total war? Again you prove you know nothing. Here you exaggerate our involvement. We did not use our nuclear bombs. We did not bomb Hanoi. We did not follow the Weapons Supply Chain to it's source. You can not describe Vietnam as total war. It was not. That you do shows you only have your opinion.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahah---troller?  I did not say it was a total war----you said you wanted the US to *commit *to total war
..do you have a hangover? durgs?


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
Click to expand...

Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.

The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ending the war in 1965 with bombing!!!!!!!?????????????
> ..this proves you don't know history--and you haven't followed the thread or don't understand:
> we destroyed all of Japan's major cities---and bombed the shit out of Germany--they did not surrender until the Allies were in Berlin and we used the Abombs---even after the Abombs, the vote for surrender was TIED 3-3 !!
> .....wrong and double wrong--the war would not have been war by bombing...please read some history
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was not Germany, equating the two simply shows you really, really, don't know anything about Vietnam.
Click to expand...

..in fact, Germany was much more industrious/etc than Vietnam----so bombing the crap out of Vietnam was even LESS effective


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ending the war in 1965 with bombing!!!!!!!?????????????
> ..this proves you don't know history--and you haven't followed the thread or don't understand:
> we destroyed all of Japan's major cities---and bombed the shit out of Germany--they did not surrender until the Allies were in Berlin and we used the Abombs---even after the Abombs, the vote for surrender was TIED 3-3 !!
> .....wrong and double wrong--the war would not have been war by bombing...please read some history
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was not Germany, equating the two simply shows you really, really, don't know anything about Vietnam.
Click to expand...

..what were we going to flatten?? a bunch of grass huts? they were getting a lot of their weapons from China and Russia
woooooohooooo


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahahahhahah???!!!!!!! are you shitting me?
> you don't see the word *OVER* ??!!!


We were involved in Vietnam over 20 years, that is why your comment is so ridiculous. You could of said, "we were involved in Vietnam over 1 year",  you would be right but it proves you have no concept of what you are talking about. You have no idea how long we were involved hence you low ball the amount of time without realizing your 1st grade mistake. Now you defend it? Without even thinking it is time to pull your head out of your ass?


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
Click to expand...


No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese. 

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahhahah???!!!!!!! are you shitting me?
> you don't see the word *OVER* ??!!!
> 
> 
> 
> We were involved in Vietnam over 20 years, that is why your comment is so ridiculous. You could of said, "we were involved in Vietnam over 1 year",  you would be right but it proves you have no concept of what you are talking about. You have no idea how long we were involved hence you low ball the amount of time without realizing your 1st grade mistake. Now you defend it? Without even thinking it is time to pull your head out of your ass?
Click to expand...

..not only do you not know history, you don't understand basic English


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..in fact, Germany was much more industrious/etc than Vietnam----so bombing the crap out of Vietnam was even LESS effective


And that is your logic? Why do you not go out and get educated on this subject before you start posting your opinion? You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam other than what you are learning with your google searches as you put your foot in your mouth.


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
Click to expand...

..so we finish the people off at the base?  then what?  how do we win?

..we finished off the base at Hamburger Hill--then we left!!!  in a lot of battles we had a greater body count......


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..in fact, Germany was much more industrious/etc than Vietnam----so bombing the crap out of Vietnam was even LESS effective
> 
> 
> 
> And that is your logic? Why do you not go out and get educated on this subject before you start posting your opinion? You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam other than what you are learning with your google searches as you put your foot in your mouth.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahah...ok 
you STILL have not posted any proof = just babble


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..not only do you not know history, you don't understand basic English


That is not an educated reply to what I posted. It stands as fact and shows you have not the education to discuss Vietnam with me. We were involved over 20 years in Vietnam. By far a much longer time than the 7 years you think we were involved.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
Click to expand...










						Allies remember Jipyeong-ri victory
					

With the battlefield silent for 60 years, and the fighting positions nearly overgrown by the country’s economic growth, Korean, American and French military leaders paid homage to the service members who fought in a key victory during the Korean War – the Battle of Jipyeong-ri (Chipyong-ni).




					www.dvidshub.net
				




Surrounded on all sides, the Warrior Division’s 23rd Regimental Combat Team with an attached French Battalion was hemmed in by roughly 25,000 Chinese Communist Forces around Jipyeong-ri. United Nations Forces had previously retreated in the face of the CCF instead of getting cut off, but this time they stood and fought.

“A relatively small force of 5,600 allied soldiers of the 23rd Regimental Combat Team and a partnering French Army Battalion under the command of Col. Paul L. Freeman formed a defensive perimeter on this ground in February of 1951,” said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, the 2nd ID commander. “Jipyeong-ri was an important transportation and communication hub, and therefore very prominent on the list of enemy targets.”

U.N. Forces were outnumbered but fought hard, Tucker added.

“All told, the allies fought at odds of roughly 15 to one,” he said. “For two horrific, bloody, frigid nights, the American and French soldiers held against impossible odds.”
============================
So let's review:

25,000 Chinese
5,600 French and US troops.

We won.

Explains?


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahahhahahahah...ok
> you STILL have not posted any proof = just babble


I do not need to prove my facts. It is your OP,  your thread. You have babbled, as you call it, over and over. You are actually babbling to me. Proving you are a hypocrite, because you have not sourced nor linked nor offered anything counter to what I have stated. You are simply proving you have to run to google and try to pull your foot out of your mouth.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..what were we going to flatten?? a bunch of grass huts? they were getting a lot of their weapons from China and Russia
> woooooohooooo


Equating Germany to Vietnam is your mistake. I am pointing that out. Grass Huts? That is kind of a bigoted stereotype of Vietnam. Again showing that you know nothing of the country you started an OP on. 

I am still waiting for you to explain your comments on France? Did you get to that? It seems you have not. You should really take a couple of hours, weeks would be better, and get an education on Vietnam.


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
Click to expand...

FDR was a Dem

hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up! 
1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
....*BEFORE *the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
 '''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
= do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
Click to expand...

You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate 

We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.

A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.

Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks. 
N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahah...ok
> you STILL have not posted any proof = just babble
> 
> 
> 
> I do not need to prove my facts. It is your OP,  your thread. You have babbled, as you call it, over and over. You are actually babbling to me. Proving you are a hypocrite, because you have not sourced nor linked nor offered anything counter to what I have stated. You are simply proving you have to run to google and try to pull your foot out of your mouth.
Click to expand...

wrong--I posted many links/facts


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..you people are thinking like it's a board game = unrealistically
> ..there are reactions to military actions--politically and militarily
> ..you are think one-dimensionally


Much of war is a board game. It seems the only person thinking, "one-dimensional". Speaking of the English Language. Are you sure you have a firm grasp on how you are expressing yourself.


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so we finish the people off at the base?  then what?  how do we win?
> 
> ..we finished off the base at Hamburger Hill--then we left!!!  in a lot of battles we had a greater body count......
Click to expand...


*That's *MY* point.*

You have to go defeat the enemy.  You have to destroy the base, then move there, and take that ground.  Then kill the next enemies, and move there, and take that ground.  When you get to the capital, they surrender, and the war is over.

Honestly, if we pushed straight for Hanoi, and finished the war, you think the Chinese would send troops and material to an already defeated ally?

No, of course not.  If North Vietnam had surrendered, the Chinese would have left.

*we finished off the base at Hamburger Hill--then we left*

Again... that is *MY* point.   We killed the soldiers nearby, and then left.

You can't do that to win.   You have to go defeat the enemy.

In football, do you just pay defense and stop the other team pushing the ball?   No.  After you stop them, then you grab the ball, and push it down to their side of the field, and run it into the end zone.

You have to go to Hanoi, and kill or threaten to kill their leaders, and force a surrender, or just flat out occupy the entire capital like Berlin.

You are making my point sir.  That's my whole point.  You have to win. You can't just attack a few soldiers, march around circles, hoping the enemy will just randomly commit suicide.

*in a lot of battles we had a greater body count*

Huh?  I have not checked the individual body counts of each battle.

However, given the fact that the North Vietnamese lost almost a million troops, and we lost 58 thousand... I do find that highly unlikely.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> wrong--I posted many links/facts


You posted no links nor facts that prove your opinion is fact. Wikipedia and the New York Times? That is what a person does when they do not know the subject at hand. 

You posted no links nor facts showing your opinion about France is accurate. 

You stated we should of learned a lesson from the powerful french. That statement shows you know absolutely nothing about France. It is the first statement I have challenged you on. I have challenged you on it, twice. This can be counted as the third time. You have no links and have posted no facts that change your opinion about France into fact.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allies remember Jipyeong-ri victory
> 
> 
> With the battlefield silent for 60 years, and the fighting positions nearly overgrown by the country’s economic growth, Korean, American and French military leaders paid homage to the service members who fought in a key victory during the Korean War – the Battle of Jipyeong-ri (Chipyong-ni).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dvidshub.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrounded on all sides, the Warrior Division’s 23rd Regimental Combat Team with an attached French Battalion was hemmed in by roughly 25,000 Chinese Communist Forces around Jipyeong-ri. United Nations Forces had previously retreated in the face of the CCF instead of getting cut off, but this time they stood and fought.
> 
> “A relatively small force of 5,600 allied soldiers of the 23rd Regimental Combat Team and a partnering French Army Battalion under the command of Col. Paul L. Freeman formed a defensive perimeter on this ground in February of 1951,” said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, the 2nd ID commander. “Jipyeong-ri was an important transportation and communication hub, and therefore very prominent on the list of enemy targets.”
> 
> U.N. Forces were outnumbered but fought hard, Tucker added.
> 
> “All told, the allies fought at odds of roughly 15 to one,” he said. “For two horrific, bloody, frigid nights, the American and French soldiers held against impossible odds.”
> ============================
> So let's review:
> 
> 25,000 Chinese
> 5,600 French and US troops.
> 
> We won.
> 
> Explains?
Click to expand...










						North Toward the Yalu River - Korean War Legacy
					

After UN forces successfully landed at Incheon and recaptured the besieged South Korean capital city of Seoul, U.S. President Harry Truman applauded General MacArthur’s “brilliant maneuver” and called the general’s campaign one of the best military operations in history. Syngman Rhee then...




					koreanwarlegacy.org
				




The cocky general declared that UN troops would invade North Korea, defeat the communist forces, stop fighting by Thanksgiving, and return home in time for Christmas. Charles Ross recalled that his commanders told him and his fellow soldiers that the war’s end was in sight: “We had been told that the war was all but over, and we were going to do an Armistice Day parade for General MacArthur in Tokyo on November 11, 1950.

On November 24, MacArthur launched a massive offensive toward the Chinese border. Almost on cue, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops stormed across the Yalu River from the north, sending US and UN troops into frantic retreat. The scope of the invasion was breathtaking. Julius Becton Jr. recalled:



> At about 8:00 p.m., the Chinese Communists attacked in massive force. [Video: Melvin Hill – Surviving the Attack by 300,000 Chinese was Luck] They swarmed over the hills, blowing bugles and horns, shaking rattles and other noisemakers, and shooting flares in the sky. They came on foot, firing rifles and burp guns, hurling grenades, and shouting and chanting shrilly. The total surprise of this awesome ground attack shocked and paralyzed most Americans and panicked not a few. [Julius W. Becton, Becton: Autobiography of a Soldier and Public Servant (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2017)]


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem
> 
> hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
> 1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
> 2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
> 3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
> ....*BEFORE *the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
> '''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
> = do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN
Click to expand...


Yeah, FDR was.  So was JFK, and LBJ.

And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.

Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions.   If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.

If there *IS* peace there, then....  why are we going? 

That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.

But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar.  All in... or not in at all.


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem
> 
> hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
> 1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
> 2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
> 3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
> ....*BEFORE *the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
> '''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
> = do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, FDR was.  So was JFK, and LBJ.
> 
> And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions.   If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.
> 
> If there *IS* peace there, then....  why are we going?
> 
> That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.
> 
> But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar.  All in... or not in at all.
Click to expand...

Nixon--a Republican--let Americans die for his own political gain--with Vietnam!:








						When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election
					

It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.




					www.politico.com
				











						Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show (Published 2017)
					

Richard M. Nixon feared that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## elektra

The only thing unwinnable, is harmonica's opinion he/she based this OP on.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?
> 
> They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted.  The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.
> 
> Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Vietnam:
> ''''' it was anti-democratic, autocratic, corrupt and nepotistic.''''
> 
> '''''The Agroville resettlements *caused enormous social and economic disruption*. Families were separated, shifted from familiar territory and forced to abandon important spiritual sites, such as temples and ancestral graves.'''''
> 
> '''''' Diem established an *autocratic* regime that was staffed at the highest levels by members of his* own family.''*'''
> ----*-WORSE* than communism
> 
> etc etc
> AND the link*S*!!! hahahhahahahaha--both links crosscheck each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem
> 
> 
> The Geneva Accords created North and South Vietnam as temporary states. In reality, both had already become separate national entities.
> 
> 
> 
> alphahistory.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ngo Dinh Diem | Facts, Vietnam War, Significance, & Death
> 
> 
> Ngo Dinh Diem,  (born January 3, 1901, Quang Binh province, northern Vietnam—died November 2, 1963, Cho Lon, South Vietnam [now in Vietnam]), Vietnamese political leader who served as president, with dictatorial powers, of what was then South Vietnam, from 1955 until his assassination...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...

Let's see-aside from the fact that this post does not have anything to do with the idea that the war was "unwinable" your links refute the contention that it was the US that made separate countries:
_*"In April 1954, diplomats from several nations – including the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and Great Britain – attended a conference in the Swiss city of Geneva. This led to the creation of the Geneva Accords, which outlined a roadmap for peace and reunification in Vietnam. "
" Both South Vietnam and its main benefactor, the United States, “acknowledged” the Accords but refused to sign them or commit to honouring their terms. The Viet Minh delegates did not wish to sign: they were sceptical about the scheduled 1956 elections and reluctant to agree to the 17th parallel border, which would mean surrendering territory to the South. In the end, the Viet Minh representatives signed on the instructions of Ho Chi Minh, who was himself under pressure from the Soviet Union and China."
"That the end envisioned by the 1954 accords (peace) proved elusive was not due to the means by which peace was to be attained. The fatal defect was to be found in the fact that the accords were not confirmed or assented to by all of the parties to the conflict. The US and the South are not bound by the Accords, since they not only refused to sign… or endorse orally the declaration but also stated affirmatively their opposition.”
Roger H. Hull, US lawyer
The Geneva Accords of 1954*_
And, no, that government was not worse than Communism and was not even the government under which the latter part of the war was fought.


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allies remember Jipyeong-ri victory
> 
> 
> With the battlefield silent for 60 years, and the fighting positions nearly overgrown by the country’s economic growth, Korean, American and French military leaders paid homage to the service members who fought in a key victory during the Korean War – the Battle of Jipyeong-ri (Chipyong-ni).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dvidshub.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrounded on all sides, the Warrior Division’s 23rd Regimental Combat Team with an attached French Battalion was hemmed in by roughly 25,000 Chinese Communist Forces around Jipyeong-ri. United Nations Forces had previously retreated in the face of the CCF instead of getting cut off, but this time they stood and fought.
> 
> “A relatively small force of 5,600 allied soldiers of the 23rd Regimental Combat Team and a partnering French Army Battalion under the command of Col. Paul L. Freeman formed a defensive perimeter on this ground in February of 1951,” said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, the 2nd ID commander. “Jipyeong-ri was an important transportation and communication hub, and therefore very prominent on the list of enemy targets.”
> 
> U.N. Forces were outnumbered but fought hard, Tucker added.
> 
> “All told, the allies fought at odds of roughly 15 to one,” he said. “For two horrific, bloody, frigid nights, the American and French soldiers held against impossible odds.”
> ============================
> So let's review:
> 
> 25,000 Chinese
> 5,600 French and US troops.
> 
> We won.
> 
> Explains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Toward the Yalu River - Korean War Legacy
> 
> 
> After UN forces successfully landed at Incheon and recaptured the besieged South Korean capital city of Seoul, U.S. President Harry Truman applauded General MacArthur’s “brilliant maneuver” and called the general’s campaign one of the best military operations in history. Syngman Rhee then...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koreanwarlegacy.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cocky general declared that UN troops would invade North Korea, defeat the communist forces, stop fighting by Thanksgiving, and return home in time for Christmas. Charles Ross recalled that his commanders told him and his fellow soldiers that the war’s end was in sight: “We had been told that the war was all but over, and we were going to do an Armistice Day parade for General MacArthur in Tokyo on November 11, 1950.
> 
> On November 24, MacArthur launched a massive offensive toward the Chinese border. Almost on cue, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops stormed across the Yalu River from the north, sending US and UN troops into frantic retreat. The scope of the invasion was breathtaking. Julius Becton Jr. recalled:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At about 8:00 p.m., the Chinese Communists attacked in massive force. [Video: Melvin Hill – Surviving the Attack by 300,000 Chinese was Luck] They swarmed over the hills, blowing bugles and horns, shaking rattles and other noisemakers, and shooting flares in the sky. They came on foot, firing rifles and burp guns, hurling grenades, and shouting and chanting shrilly. The total surprise of this awesome ground attack shocked and paralyzed most Americans and panicked not a few. [Julius W. Becton, Becton: Autobiography of a Soldier and Public Servant (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2017)]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

..it was one of the worst defeats in US history..I could go into great detail on Mac's screw up ..a big ego fk up......
..Victory Disease/ego/etc ......Almond also...weather/terrain/roads/intel/politics/etc...much to it - as I constantly say--it's not a board game--even generals are not perfect--like members here and other forums


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..it was one of the worst defeats in US history..I could go into great detail on Mac's screw up ..a big ego fk up......
> ..Victory Disease/ego/etc ......Almond also...weather/terrain/roads/intel/politics/etc...much to it - as I constantly say--it's not a board game--even generals are not perfect--like members here and other forums


Still nothing to support your opinion of France's power and we were involved in Vietnam 7 years? Or did you mean 7 years and 3 days, cause as you point out, you stated, "over".

War, you keep stating it is not a board game? Yet, even today war is strategized on a board. With little figurines representing armies and tanks and such. They have even taken it further and computerized war. I think they actually call it, "war games". Either way, the Vietnam and Korean war were strategized on a board, like a game. You know nothing of war nor the history of Vietnam.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem
> 
> hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
> 1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
> 2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
> 3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
> ....*BEFORE *the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
> '''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
> = do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, FDR was.  So was JFK, and LBJ.
> 
> And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions.   If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.
> 
> If there *IS* peace there, then....  why are we going?
> 
> That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.
> 
> But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar.  All in... or not in at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nixon--a Republican--let Americans die for his own political gain--with Vietnam!:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election
> 
> 
> It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show (Published 2017)
> 
> 
> Richard M. Nixon feared that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

North Vietnam never intended the war to end through "peace talks" nor did it. If you want a sleezy politician who conspired with the enemy you can't beat John Kerry.


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> You didn’t answer his question.
> 
> What do you think total war would have achieved?


Total war, it would achieve an early win.


----------



## elektra

1st, the OP states that, that France should of been a lesson to the USA. A very ignorant thing to state. The OP further describes France as powerful. 

After World War II France was powerful? After World War II France had a modern Air Force and Navy? The OP fails on its most basic assumption and opinion of France. That France was powerful after World War II. 

France never had the military means to be effective in Vietnam after World War II. 

As this is the OP's premise, it shows the very lack of education that harmonica has in regards to Vietnam.


----------



## elektra

Dien Bien Phu, just a cursory read of that battle shows the USA was involved in Vietnam far longer than the seven years harmonica has stated. 

Substantial Military Aid, since at least 1953. 
Landsdale and his Filipino counterinsurgency operatives were in and advising Vietnam in 1952. Or more specifiacally Ngo Dinh Diem.

Our involvement in Vietnam was over 30 years. Not simply "over 7 years", as harmonica stated.


----------



## Camp

Vietnam was a basic war of attrition. Each side tries to inflict as many casualties as possible on the opposing side. Eventually, soldiers are being drafted at larger and larger numbers. In America, everyone knew young boys serving in Vietnam and eventually everyone had some relationship with a kid who came home a casualty, in a box, or as a wounded forever individual. When people have visions and memories of real people who used to be your child's school mate, a daughter's boyfriend, the once paperboy,  the kid who shoveled your sidewalk or cut your grass, or God forbid, your own child, or sibling, then, attrition for winning for your enemy is within reach. When casualties reach these numbers and saturation the population demands answers and talking point propaganda fails the test of believability.
Vietnam's communist leaders always had confidence they could win because they knew they could and would wear America down.
There's an old story of an N. Vietnamese teenage draftee that was snared out of his village one-day without warning, loaded on a truck, and dropped off at a trailhead of the Ho Chi Minh Trail with a mortar round and sent marching south with an order to deliver the mortar round.  
For five months the draftee sacrificed and suffered through hunger, horrible weather, random bombings from American planes, more hunger, illness, biting insects, fear of snakes, coldness during rain and night during endless monsoons, seeing friends mutilated and killed, and all the horrors of war, when finally he came to a battle and was led to a group of soldiers firing mortars. A soldier took the precious mortar he had been carrying for five months and in seconds dropped the mortar down the mortar tube and sent it flying into the night sky. Shocked, the teenage draftee asked, "What should I do now?". The soldier who had sent the mortar round flying answered, "Go get another one".


----------



## Camp

elektra said:


> Dien Bien Phu, just a cursory read of that battle shows the USA was involved in Vietnam far longer than the seven years harmonica has stated.
> 
> Substantial Military Aid, since at least 1953.
> Landsdale and his Filipino counterinsurgency operatives were in and advising Vietnam in 1952. Or more specifiacally Ngo Dinh Diem.
> 
> Our involvement in Vietnam was over 30 years. Not simply "over 7 years", as harmonica stated.


Two American's were killed shortly after crashing after being hit by enemy fire while making a supply drop to Dien Bien Phu. Google Wallace Buford and James B. McGovern.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
Click to expand...

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
Click to expand...

Only because we had to FEW troops in North Korea. The 1st Marine Division was surrounded by 7 Chinese Armies and when they fought their way back to the beach all 7 of those armies were ruined as fighting forces. The army was spread company and battalion strength along the Chinese Border and the Chines hit those companies with divisions.  The Only reason we never retook North Korea was because a POLITICAL decision was made NOT to.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
Click to expand...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate
> 
> We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.
> 
> A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.
> 
> Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
> N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.
Click to expand...

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate
> 
> We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.
> 
> A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.
> 
> Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
> N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.
Click to expand...

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
3.invading against defense takes more casualties 
4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure 
5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!! 
6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation 
holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate
> 
> We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.
> 
> A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.
> 
> Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
> N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.
Click to expand...

.....it's the SAME thing as Afghanistan --when we leave, the same shit goes on


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American soldiers
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
Click to expand...

Wasn't a mistake in Korea and wouldn't have been a mistake in Vietnam. Both N. Korea and China got their asses thoroughly kicked in Korea and I doubt very much that China would  have wanted more of the same in Vietnam. Even North Vietnam defeated a Chinese invasion not too long after we left.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
> 2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
> 3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
> 4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
> a. Russia TOO big
> b. Russia population much bigger
> ......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
> ..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
> we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
> you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
> View attachment 362501
Click to expand...

I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement. 

You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA? 

Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union. 

It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces. 

Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American soldiers
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't a mistake in Korea and wouldn't have been a mistake in Vietnam. Both N. Korea and China got their asses thoroughly kicked in Korea and I doubt very much that China would  have wanted more of the same in Vietnam. Even North Vietnam defeated a Chinese invasion not too long after we left.
Click to expand...

......what planet are you on? China kicked our a$$es --Twice in the initial stages...then it was stalemate
..they kicked a whole CORPS off the peninsula 


> The result was a disaster





> It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century


etc etc 









						Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
					

The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.




					www.brookings.edu
				







__





						Chinese counterattacks in Korea change nature of war
					

In some of the fiercest fighting of the Korean War, thousands of communist Chinese troops launch massive counterattacks against U.S. and Republic of Korea (ROK)




					www.history.com


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
> 2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
> 3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
> 4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
> a. Russia TOO big
> b. Russia population much bigger
> ......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
> ..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
> we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
> you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
> View attachment 362501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.
> 
> You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?
> 
> Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.
> 
> It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.
> 
> Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.
Click to expand...

you're babbling


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
> 2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
> 3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
> 4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
> a. Russia TOO big
> b. Russia population much bigger
> ......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
> ..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
> we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
> you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
> View attachment 362501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.
> 
> You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?
> 
> Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.
> 
> It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.
> 
> Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.
Click to expand...

It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century


----------



## Mr Natural

It was by far a stupid fucking waste of life.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
> 2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
> 3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
> 4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
> a. Russia TOO big
> b. Russia population much bigger
> ......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
> ..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
> we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
> you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
> View attachment 362501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.
> 
> You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?
> 
> Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.
> 
> It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.
> 
> Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.
Click to expand...

the US ''won''
China ''won''
SKorea ''won'
NKorea lost

US kept South Korea --which was the objective
China kept the US off their border/away from the Chosin= their objective
SKorea kept from being overrun
North Korea did not achieve it's objective


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate
> 
> We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.
> 
> A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.
> 
> Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
> N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. after we leave the same thing goes on
> 2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
> 3.invading against defense takes more casualties
> 4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
> 5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
> 6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
> holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!
Click to expand...

_1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN._
What N. Vietnam? There would be no North Vietnam. Vietnam would be united under the South Vietnamese government and we could leave. Not that difficult a concept.

_3.invading against defense takes more casualties_

Not as many as sitting around year after allowing the enemy to decide when where and how to attack.

_4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure_

More like the Nazis taking France.

_5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!_

Yes, actually I do. Unlike you I was there and paying attention and after returning home I did lots of research tying to figure WTF just happened. After '68 we had more than enough of everything to do the job. All that was lacking were politicians with a spine.

_you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!_

I played that game for real. Real blood. Real pain and death.
Try talking that shit when you've had some real experience.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate
> 
> We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.
> 
> A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.
> 
> Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
> N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. after we leave the same thing goes on
> 2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
> 3.invading against defense takes more casualties
> 4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
> 5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
> 6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
> holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _1. after we leave the same thing goes on
> 2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN._
> What N. Vietnam? There would be no North Vietnam. Vietnam would be united under the South Vietnamese government and we could leave. Not that difficult a concept.
> 
> _3.invading against defense takes more casualties_
> 
> Not as many as sitting around year after allowing the enemy to decide when where and how to attack.
> 
> _4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure_
> 
> More like the Nazis taking France.
> 
> _5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!_
> 
> Yes, actually I do. Unlike you I was there and paying attention and after returning home I did lots of research tying to figure WTF just happened. After '68 we had more than enough of everything to do the job. All that was lacking were politicians with a spine.
> 
> _you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!_
> 
> I played that game for real. Real blood. Real pain and death.
> Try talking that shit when you've had some real experience.View attachment 362510
Click to expand...

......so we are going to ''deport''  [hahahahhaah] all the North Vietnamese from the North ????? and send them--where????!!!!!!
..they will still be there and we won't--then they continue on


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American soldiers
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't a mistake in Korea and wouldn't have been a mistake in Vietnam. Both N. Korea and China got their asses thoroughly kicked in Korea and I doubt very much that China would  have wanted more of the same in Vietnam. Even North Vietnam defeated a Chinese invasion not too long after we left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......what planet are you on? China kicked our a$$es --Twice in the initial stages...then it was stalemate
> ..they kicked a whole CORPS off the peninsula
> 
> 
> 
> The result was a disaster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> etc etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
> 
> 
> The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese counterattacks in Korea change nature of war
> 
> 
> In some of the fiercest fighting of the Korean War, thousands of communist Chinese troops launch massive counterattacks against U.S. and Republic of Korea (ROK)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 362505
Click to expand...


Korean war casualty statistics

*Country*KIA+WoundedS *Korea*227,800717,100US54,229103,248UK7102,278Turkey7172,246

*US Troops Statistics*
Source: Dept. of Defense
US Deaths:
Hostile: 33,739
Non-Hostile: 2,835
Total In-Theatre: 36,574
US Wounded in Action - 103,284
*Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China - (600,000 military)
The statistics speak for themselves


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate
> 
> We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.
> 
> A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade.  60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.
> 
> Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
> N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. after we leave the same thing goes on
> 2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
> 3.invading against defense takes more casualties
> 4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
> 5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
> 6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
> holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _1. after we leave the same thing goes on
> 2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN._
> What N. Vietnam? There would be no North Vietnam. Vietnam would be united under the South Vietnamese government and we could leave. Not that difficult a concept.
> 
> _3.invading against defense takes more casualties_
> 
> Not as many as sitting around year after allowing the enemy to decide when where and how to attack.
> 
> _4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure_
> 
> More like the Nazis taking France.
> 
> _5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!_
> 
> Yes, actually I do. Unlike you I was there and paying attention and after returning home I did lots of research tying to figure WTF just happened. After '68 we had more than enough of everything to do the job. All that was lacking were politicians with a spine.
> 
> _you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!_
> 
> I played that game for real. Real blood. Real pain and death.
> Try talking that shit when you've had some real experience.View attachment 362510
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......so we are going to ''deport''  [hahahahhaah] all the North Vietnamese from the North ????? and send them--where????!!!!!!
> ..they will still be there and we won't--then they continue on
Click to expand...

Try getting an intelligent adult to read my posts. I am tiered of repeating myself.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century


You concede, the premise of your OP is wrong. You can not offer one answer to the errors you have made. 

Debacle? That is your opinion, and as you have proven you are unable to substantiate your opinion.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century
> 
> 
> 
> You concede, the premise of your OP is wrong. You can not offer one answer to the errors you have made.
> 
> Debacle? That is your opinion, and as you have proven you are unable to substantiate your opinion.
Click to expand...

hahhahahhahaha
..you people have't provided ANY evidence to  refute it except your babbling
..I won this long ago...JFK's quote was the icing on the cake


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
> 2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
> 3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
> 4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
> a. Russia TOO big
> b. Russia population much bigger
> ......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
> ..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
> we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
> you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
> View attachment 362501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.
> 
> You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?
> 
> Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.
> 
> It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.
> 
> Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US ''won''
> China ''won''
> SKorea ''won'
> NKorea lost
> 
> US kept South Korea --which was the objective
> China kept the US off their border/away from the Chosin= their objective
> SKorea kept from being overrun
> North Korea did not achieve it's objective
Click to expand...

I'm sure those nations will be glad to know you've decided what their objectives were.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century
> 
> 
> 
> You concede, the premise of your OP is wrong. You can not offer one answer to the errors you have made.
> 
> Debacle? That is your opinion, and as you have proven you are unable to substantiate your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahhahaha
> ..you people have't provided ANY evidence to  refute it except your babbling
> ..I won this long ago...JFK's quote was the icing on the cake
Click to expand...

Nope JFK's quote didn't say he thought the war was unwinable and was made before we ever had combat units in Vietnam. In any case he was just voicing opinion on a different subject.
You simply know nothing about what you are trying to run your mouth about.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.
> 
> But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.
> 
> Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.
> 
> But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
> 2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
> 3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
> 4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
> a. Russia TOO big
> b. Russia population much bigger
> ......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
> ..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
> we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
> you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
> View attachment 362501
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.
> 
> You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?
> 
> Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.
> 
> It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.
> 
> Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US ''won''
> China ''won''
> SKorea ''won'
> NKorea lost
> 
> US kept South Korea --which was the objective
> China kept the US off their border/away from the Chosin= their objective
> SKorea kept from being overrun
> North Korea did not achieve it's objective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure those nations will be glad to know you've decided what their objectives were.
Click to expand...




> A UNC attack into North Korea would pose a more prominent threat to Chinaís national security.





			https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2803&context=gradschool_theses
		




> On the afternoon of June 25, the U.N. Security Council met in an emergency session and approved a U.S. resolution calling for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” and *the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th paralle*l.







__





						President Truman orders U.S. forces to Korea
					

On June 27, 1950, President Harry S. Truman announces that he is ordering U.S. air and naval forces to South Korea to aid the democratic nation in repulsing an




					www.history.com


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century
> 
> 
> 
> You concede, the premise of your OP is wrong. You can not offer one answer to the errors you have made.
> 
> Debacle? That is your opinion, and as you have proven you are unable to substantiate your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahhahahhahaha
> ..you people have't provided ANY evidence to  refute it except your babbling
> ..I won this long ago...JFK's quote was the icing on the cake
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope JFK's quote didn't say he thought the war was unwinable and was made before we ever had combat units in Vietnam. In any case he was just voicing opinion on a different subject.
> You simply know nothing about what you are trying to run your mouth about.
Click to expand...

hahhahahhahahahahahah-
.....STOP posting so much evidence !! please!!!!!


----------



## Dick Foster

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
Click to expand...

For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him. 
If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.


----------



## harmonica

Dick Foster said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
Click to expand...

..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es


----------



## rightwinger

Dick Foster said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
Click to expand...

MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.

He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives


Truman should have fired him sooner


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
Click to expand...

..yes--he fked up in  the PI also


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

*“The Democrats & Communists Stabbed Us in the Back!”*

..._ said the Nazis after Germany lost WWI_


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahhahahhahahahahahah-
> .....STOP posting so much evidence !! please!!!!!


I know, evidence, something you have not posted. Tell us again how our involvement was only seven years and how France should of been a lesson.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahhahahhahaha
> ..you people have't provided ANY evidence to  refute it except your babbling
> ..I won this long ago...JFK's quote was the icing on the cake


Proving you wrong was evidence enough. First and foremost, you think the French lost should of been a lesson to us. You described France as strong. Had you any education beyond google searching your opinion you would have known that after World War II France had a weak Army, Almost no Air Force, and little Navy. That is fact. This is the second time I point it out to you. It is obvious, had you been able to find anything to counter my fact which would substantiate your opinion you would of linked to it. But you can not. 

It also seems that you can connect the dots between Dien Bien Phu and Korea. 

You make any proclamation you like, but you have not based this OP on fact that you educated yourself of. You simply have an opinion and think google searches confirm your opinion. 

Babbling, yes you continue to babble.


----------



## elektra

China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.



> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.


----------



## elektra

Sad, how China got it's ass handed to it buy the USA in Korea



> The dogged determination of the United Nations Command (UNC) forces would not only dispel any Chinese hopes of a rapid victory, but would inflict over 539,000 casualties on the CPVF


----------



## elektra

We must thank harmonica for pointing out that China and the North Koreans lost in Korea. 



> Chinese errors in adapting to modern technology proved to be critical. The UNCís high mobility and increased firepower, which the Chinese trivialized, played a pivotal role in prolonging the conflict and denying the CPVF and the NKPA their ultimate victory.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
Click to expand...

Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:

US Deaths:
Hostile: 33,739
Non-Hostile: 2,835
Total In-Theatre: 36,574
US Wounded in Action - 103,284
*Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China - (600,000 military) 

If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
                                                  North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
                                                    China KIA's  =*600,000*
Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use. 
In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

elektra said:


> We must thank harmonica for pointing out that China and the North Koreans lost in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chinese errors in adapting to modern technology proved to be critical. The UNCís high mobility and increased firepower, which the Chinese trivialized, played a pivotal role in prolonging the conflict and denying the CPVF and the NKPA their ultimate victory.
Click to expand...

I continue to be amazed at the accuracy with which our two resident Communist sympathizers quote their party line even in the face of truth.


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem
> 
> hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
> 1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
> 2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
> 3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
> ....*BEFORE *the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
> '''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
> = do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, FDR was.  So was JFK, and LBJ.
> 
> And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions.   If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.
> 
> If there *IS* peace there, then....  why are we going?
> 
> That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.
> 
> But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar.  All in... or not in at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nixon--a Republican--let Americans die for his own political gain--with Vietnam!:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election
> 
> 
> It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show (Published 2017)
> 
> 
> Richard M. Nixon feared that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...


It didn't matter though.  The North Vietnamese had no intention of surrendering at all, or having a real peace.  Which is why the conditions of the "peace" deal, involved N.Viet troops remaining in S.Vietnam.

The only time that the North Vietnamese actually pursed peace at all, was when Nixon was unleashing the US military to conduct unrestricted offensive attacks in 1972.


----------



## Andylusion

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
Click to expand...


Agreed agreed.
All of those numbers are dead on accurate.

We could have easily marched into N.K. and forced a surrender.

Especially during the 1950s.  Again, China's army was quite literally peasants.

At least during Vietnam, China had a mild level of training.   But during the 50s, the Chinese regulars were people formerly holding pitch forks in the countryside, that were handed bolt action rifles.

Equipment was often sparse, and resulted in them using captured American weapons, which then presented the problem of them running out of ammunition.

I am absolutely convinced based on the evidence, that if we had simply decided to take out North Korea, we could have done it, and then we wouldn't have this problem today.


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed agreed.
> All of those numbers are dead on accurate.
> 
> We could have easily marched into N.K. and forced a surrender.
> 
> Especially during the 1950s.  Again, China's army was quite literally peasants.
> 
> At least during Vietnam, China had a mild level of training.   But during the 50s, the Chinese regulars were people formerly holding pitch forks in the countryside, that were handed bolt action rifles.
> 
> Equipment was often sparse, and resulted in them using captured American weapons, which then presented the problem of them running out of ammunition.
> 
> I am absolutely convinced based on the evidence, that if we had simply decided to take out North Korea, we could have done it, and then we wouldn't have this problem today.
Click to expand...

.......we went up to the Yalu-----we did take out NK---and then the Chinese kicked our ass


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
Click to expand...

after they kicked our asses


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
Click to expand...

apparently you don't know shit about history/war/etc
WW2:
Russian deaths:military ALONE almost 8 MILLION
Germany about 5.5 million 
FYI = Germany LOST !!!
KIAs mean nothing


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
Click to expand...

......so they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--that's stopping the US????!!!hahhahahahahahaha


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed agreed.
> All of those numbers are dead on accurate.
> 
> We could have easily marched into N.K. and forced a surrender.
> 
> Especially during the 1950s.  Again, China's army was quite literally peasants.
> 
> At least during Vietnam, China had a mild level of training.   But during the 50s, the Chinese regulars were people formerly holding pitch forks in the countryside, that were handed bolt action rifles.
> 
> Equipment was often sparse, and resulted in them using captured American weapons, which then presented the problem of them running out of ammunition.
> 
> I am absolutely convinced based on the evidence, that if we had simply decided to take out North Korea, we could have done it, and then we wouldn't have this problem today.
Click to expand...

..YOU, a USMB member is convinced ....hahahahahhahahahahaha


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and no.
> 
> Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.
> 
> It's like going into a boxing match, and saying
> 
> "You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."
> 
> If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.
> 
> If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table.  Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February.  Intensified the attack in May.  By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.
> 
> If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.
> 
> There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose.   The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.
> 
> Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.
> 
> We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.
> 
> Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win.  You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy.  You can't win a war, by only playing defense.
> 
> Think about it like Football.  Can you ever win a game of football without offense?   Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?
> 
> But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war.  We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what?  The enemy to all commit suicide?  Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
> --so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at *TOTAL *war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  China didn't barely have jack.  In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war.  It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.
> 
> Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960.   The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.
> 
> And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.
> 
> One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army.  The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people.  And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.
> 
> The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.
> 
> In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%.   That's insane.   And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time.   To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.
> 
> And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.
> 
> Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over.  China could not have stopped us.  Not even come close.  Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.
> 
> And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us.  If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's a fact.   That's just a fact.   The Tet Offensive is a perfect example.  The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.
> 
> Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.
> 
> No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.
> 
> One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.
> 
> Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base.  So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.
> 
> This is why our military personnel were killed.  And that was due to left-wingers.  No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.
> 
> Left-wingers killed those troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR was a Dem
> 
> hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
> 1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
> 2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
> 3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
> ....*BEFORE *the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
> '''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
> = do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, FDR was.  So was JFK, and LBJ.
> 
> And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.
> 
> Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions.   If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.
> 
> If there *IS* peace there, then....  why are we going?
> 
> That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.
> 
> But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar.  All in... or not in at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nixon--a Republican--let Americans die for his own political gain--with Vietnam!:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election
> 
> 
> It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show (Published 2017)
> 
> 
> Richard M. Nixon feared that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't matter though.  The North Vietnamese had no intention of surrendering at all, or having a real peace.  Which is why the conditions of the "peace" deal, involved N.Viet troops remaining in S.Vietnam.
> 
> The only time that the North Vietnamese actually pursed peace at all, was when Nixon was unleashing the US military to conduct unrestricted offensive attacks in 1972.
Click to expand...

you obviously didn't read the link posted which said::
It was by far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century


----------



## rightwinger

elektra said:


> Sad, how China got it's ass handed to it buy the USA in Korea



Yet there still is a N Korea


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
Click to expand...

Once again you take the simplistic approach we used in Vietnam that whoever killed more of the other guy wins.

It was MacArthurs decision to ignore warnings not to invade north of the 38th parallel and instead proceed to the Yalu River that brought in the Chinese and led to a full out war.

Yes, we killed many more Chinese than they killed us, but we engaged in an unnecessary war that ended up where it started.....at the 38th parallel


----------



## Desperado

We lost because we had no business being there in the first place.  That goes for Vietnam, Korea and pick your war in the mid east.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> I am absolutely convinced based on the evidence, that if we had simply decided to take out North Korea, we could have done it, and then we wouldn't have this problem today.



We did try to take out N Korea. We invaded and marched all the way to the Yalu River. MacArthur also ignored the threat of those Chinese “peasants” and got his ass handed to him as he scampered back to the 38th parallel. He should have been fired then and there.

Could we have regrouped and attacked the Chinese again?  Probably, but not without suffering more casualties than Truman was willing to give.  America had just gone through WWII and was tired of war.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after they kicked our asses
Click to expand...

You can not argue with the quote. The quote states the opposite of your opinion.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......so they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--that's stopping the US????!!!hahhahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

Again, the quote proves you wrong. You make the claim that you substantiate your opinion with links yet when confronted with facts all you do is laugh? 

again,, the quote proves that your opinion is pure fiction.


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> Yet there still is a N Korea


Yet, the Chinese/North Korea objective was for there to be no South Korea yet there still is a South Korea.


----------



## Pilot1

Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.


----------



## Desperado

Pilot1 said:


> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.


Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory  
 The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.


----------



## Dick Foster

harmonica said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es
Click to expand...


Dumbass they sneak attacked then Mcarthur landed at Inchon and put the run on the little bastards right back across the border where they came from and if Mcarthur had had his way he'd have run the little bastards all the way to Pieking as it was called then. You're obviously a real dumbass when it comes to history. I suppose in your idiotic feeble mind the South won the civil war because they won most of the battles at the beginning. BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too, you hopeless dumbass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Desperado said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
Click to expand...

Because of cowardly dishonest Democrats.


----------



## Desperado

Dick Foster said:


> BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too,


now there is a record to be proud of,,,,, never lost a battle yet we lost the war.Are those Generals still in charge now?  With the way the wars in the Mid East are progressing it sure looks like it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apparently you don't know shit about history/war/etc
> WW2:
> Russian deaths:military ALONE almost 8 MILLION
> Germany about 5.5 million
> FYI = Germany LOST !!!
> KIAs mean nothing
Click to expand...

And your comment has absolutely nothing to do with either my post or the subject of this thread.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Desperado said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
Click to expand...

Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed agreed.
> All of those numbers are dead on accurate.
> 
> We could have easily marched into N.K. and forced a surrender.
> 
> Especially during the 1950s.  Again, China's army was quite literally peasants.
> 
> At least during Vietnam, China had a mild level of training.   But during the 50s, the Chinese regulars were people formerly holding pitch forks in the countryside, that were handed bolt action rifles.
> 
> Equipment was often sparse, and resulted in them using captured American weapons, which then presented the problem of them running out of ammunition.
> 
> I am absolutely convinced based on the evidence, that if we had simply decided to take out North Korea, we could have done it, and then we wouldn't have this problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .......we went up to the Yalu-----we did take out NK---and then the Chinese kicked our ass
Click to expand...

Initially. Because of a sneak attack launched by a country we were not at war with. Then we turned around and delivered an ass kicking many orders of magnitude greater to them.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......so they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--that's stopping the US????!!!hahhahahahahahaha
Click to expand...

Didn't happen. Learn history.


----------



## LuckyDuck

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Two problems with that concept.
1.  We had completely destroyed the North Vietnam's guerilla units called, Viet Cong.  That left only the NVA army to finish off.
2.  Technically we weren't losing the war on the ground in Vietnam.  We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts).  This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war.  Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.  
Having said all that, the one thing that was despicable, was how we got into the war in the first place.  It was based upon a lie.  That said, once we were actually committed to the war, we should have done two things, not giving the media unrestricted access to filming and letting the military go full out and not allow the civilian administration to pick and choose the targets.  It essentially put handcuffs on how the military could operate. Those same idiotic restrictions were done via the Obama administration.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MacArthurs arrogance screwed the pooch in Korea just like it did in the Philippines. Nobody could tell MacArthur anything.
> 
> He was warned that his invasion of the north would draw in China. He laughed at the threat and laughed at China. His arrogance cost the US 50,000 lives
> 
> 
> Truman should have fired him sooner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you can't read either. My earlier post:
> 
> US Deaths:
> Hostile: 33,739
> Non-Hostile: 2,835
> Total In-Theatre: 36,574
> US Wounded in Action - 103,284
> *Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)*
> Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
> South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
> North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
> China - (600,000 military)
> 
> If you could read you might note that: USA KIA's= *33,739*
> North Korea KIA's=*406,000*
> China KIA's  =*600,000*
> Find someone to do the math but we clearly kicked some serious ass and that without nukes which we would have been more than justified to use.
> In Vietnam we killed and captured a few hundred more Chinese without even bothering to go looking for them. They just weren't ready to face those kind of losses again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you take the simplistic approach we used in Vietnam that whoever killed more of the other guy wins.
> 
> It was MacArthurs decision to ignore warnings not to invade north of the 38th parallel and instead proceed to the Yalu River that brought in the Chinese and led to a full out war.
> 
> Yes, we killed many more Chinese than they killed us, but we engaged in an unnecessary war that ended up where it started.....at the 38th parallel
Click to expand...

You call defending yourself when attacked "unnecessary"?
We were in South Korea to protect it from invasion and we kicked the invading forces out and accomplished our mission. We won;they lost. End of story.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

LuckyDuck said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems with that concept.
> 1.  We had completely destroyed the North Vietnam's guerilla units called, Viet Cong.  That left only the NVA army to finish off.
> 2.  Technically we weren't losing the war on the ground in Vietnam.  We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts).  This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war.  Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> Having said all that, the one thing that was despicable, was how we got into the war in the first place.  It was based upon a lie.  That said, once we were actually committed to the war, we should have done two things, not giving the media unrestricted access to filming and letting the military go full out and not allow the civilian administration to pick and choose the targets.  It essentially put handcuffs on how the military could operate. Those same idiotic restrictions were done via the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

The actual enemy was always N. Vietnam. Most of the VC were actually NVA out of uniform. 
The press was allowed access because it was hoped it would counter loud and aggressive North Vietnamese propaganda which was parroted by Communist sympathizers in the US.
The administration-as always-did what it wanted to do without consulting the people.


----------



## Sunsettommy

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .



Actually the TET Offensive in 1968 nearly destroyed the North Vietnamese army, their top commander Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
Click to expand...

Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in


----------



## rightwinger

LuckyDuck said:


> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.



You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?

You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?


The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them


----------



## Pilot1

Desperado said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
Click to expand...


They're in charge.  In charge or WHAT?  A crappy country with cheap labor?  The Russians and Chinese aren't in charge and the country has become largely Capitalist.  That was the whole point, right?  Yes the Domino theory at the time was real, but we now have 50 years of 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## rightwinger

Sunsettommy said:


> Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.



They wore us out, just like they did the French.

Americans got tired of hearing......Just give us 100,000 more men and we will be home by Christmas......year after year after year.


----------



## Sunsettommy

rightwinger said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wore us out, just like they did the French.
> 
> Americans got tired of hearing......Just give us 100,000 more men and we will be home by Christmas......year after tear after year.
Click to expand...


It was a war America never should have been in.


----------



## elektra

LuckyDuck said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems with that concept.
> 1.  We had completely destroyed the North Vietnam's guerilla units called, Viet Cong.  That left only the NVA army to finish off.
> 2.  Technically we weren't losing the war on the ground in Vietnam.  We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts).  This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war.  Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> Having said all that, the one thing that was despicable, was how we got into the war in the first place.  It was based upon a lie.  That said, once we were actually committed to the war, we should have done two things, not giving the media unrestricted access to filming and letting the military go full out and not allow the civilian administration to pick and choose the targets.  It essentially put handcuffs on how the military could operate. Those same idiotic restrictions were done via the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

what lie said by who?


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wore us out, just like they did the French.
> 
> Americans got tired of hearing......Just give us 100,000 more men and we will be home by Christmas......year after year after year.
Click to expand...

there is truth in what you say but we screwed the french over. We either never should of supported the french or once committed we should of given 100%.


----------



## justinacolmena

harmonica said:


> *Vietnam War was unwinnable*
> .first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER


No war in history was ever won by marijuana-addicted pro-gun-control pro-birth-control Democrat stoner conscripts.


----------



## harmonica

Sunsettommy said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the TET Offensive in 1968 nearly destroyed the North Vietnamese army, their top commander Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.
Click to expand...

..I know all about that
..what's your point?


----------



## harmonica

LuckyDuck said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems with that concept.
> 1.  We had completely destroyed the North Vietnam's guerilla units called, Viet Cong.  That left only the NVA army to finish off.
> 2.  Technically we weren't losing the war on the ground in Vietnam.  We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts).  This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war.  Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> Having said all that, the one thing that was despicable, was how we got into the war in the first place.  It was based upon a lie.  That said, once we were actually committed to the war, we should have done two things, not giving the media unrestricted access to filming and letting the military go full out and not allow the civilian administration to pick and choose the targets.  It essentially put handcuffs on how the military could operate. Those same idiotic restrictions were done via the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

..it would not have mattered if the military had no restrictions - unwinnable 
.


----------



## harmonica

Dick Foster said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass they sneak attacked then Mcarthur landed at Inchon and put the run on the little bastards right back across the border where they came from and if Mcarthur had had his way he'd have run the little bastards all the way to Pieking as it was called then. You're obviously a real dumbass when it comes to history. I suppose in your idiotic feeble mind the South won the civil war because they won most of the battles at the beginning. BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too, you hopeless dumbass.
Click to expand...

..you are dreaming if the US could've beat China--too big--too many people
..it would've been like Napoleon at Moscow = loss


----------



## harmonica

Dick Foster said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass they sneak attacked then Mcarthur landed at Inchon and put the run on the little bastards right back across the border where they came from and if Mcarthur had had his way he'd have run the little bastards all the way to Pieking as it was called then. You're obviously a real dumbass when it comes to history. I suppose in your idiotic feeble mind the South won the civil war because they won most of the battles at the beginning. BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too, you hopeless dumbass.
Click to expand...

..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
hahahahahahahah


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after they kicked our asses
Click to expand...

You can not argue with the quote. The quote states the opposite of your opinion.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> China, very much got stopped by the USA in Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese exaggerated their own military capabilities and underestimated the firepower and general effectiveness of American forces.  But the Chinese army was unable to assimilate modern weaponry and tactics and, facing immense logistical difficulties, could not use its superior numbers to overwhelm United Nations forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after they kicked our asses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can not argue with the quote. The quote states the opposite of your opinion.
Click to expand...

'''''''''. It was* by far the worst military debacle* the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century''''''








						Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
					

The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.




					www.brookings.edu


----------



## 9thIDdoc

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
Click to expand...

So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
Click to expand...

you fked up there--again........
..we lost Cambodia, Vietnam, AND Laos to communism   AND Cuba---AND China....guess what?? take a guess.......................................................................................the US is OK!!!..we are still here!!!!!!!!!!!!
...if anything, the Vietnam war not only wasted lives but a lot of $$$ that could've been spent in the US = strengthening the US.....Vietnam made the US less strong:
-many countries saw the UNJUSTIFIED destruction and deaths we caused
-the US was seen as WEAK/vulnerable because we couldn't win/lost


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah


You are an idiot, do you not read what you post to. Now that you have made the above statement, you have contradicted the link I have been quoting that you have provided. Everything I have quoted comes from harmonica's link! How about the following quote from your link that is the opposite of what you are stating right now!


> The Chinese 5th offensive commenced at 6:00 A.M. on May 10, 1951.  The Chinese made limited gains until May 20, when they began to run critically short of ammunition.  As casualties mounted and CPVF gains diminished, Peng called a halt to the offensive and ordered a general withdrawal.  The Chinese retreat became a disaster when the UNC launched a counter-attack on May 23.  Peng established a defensive line by May 27, but the effort cost the CPVF 85,000 casualties.  The Chinese 3rd Army Group alone suffered 13,000 casualties.226  At this point, both the Peopleís Republic of China and the Democratic Peopleís Republic of Korea had no choice but to acknowledge the war had become a stalemate and to enter into negotiations for a cease-fire.2


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Desperado said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
Click to expand...

They most certainly did win major engagements with the Japanese, French, South Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians,and occupied by force large portions of Cambodia and Laos. Not to mention South Vietnam which they continue to occupy. Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot, do you not read what you post to. Now that you have made the above statement, you have contradicted the link I have been quoting that you have provided. Everything I have quoted comes from harmonica's link! How about the following quote from your link that is the opposite of what you are stating right now!
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese 5th offensive commenced at 6:00 A.M. on May 10, 1951.  The Chinese made limited gains until May 20, when they began to run critically short of ammunition.  As casualties mounted and CPVF gains diminished, Peng called a halt to the offensive and ordered a general withdrawal.  The Chinese retreat became a disaster when the UNC launched a counter-attack on May 23.  Peng established a defensive line by May 27, but the effort cost the CPVF 85,000 casualties.  The Chinese 3rd Army Group alone suffered 13,000 casualties.226  At this point, both the Peopleís Republic of China and the Democratic Peopleís Republic of Korea had no choice but to acknowledge the war had become a stalemate and to enter into negotiations for a cease-fire.2
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

''''''''It was *by far the worst military debacle *the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century'''''''''









						Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
					

The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.




					www.brookings.edu


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> '''''''''. It was* by far the worst military debacle* the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
> 
> 
> The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu


From the link you provided, contradicts your latest google search. Which one of your links are we suppose to believe?

It is obvious, you are reading the link and description to a google search then posting without reading or putting any effort into understanding what you just linked to. I have been quoting your link! You are now arguing against what you provided as accurate facts! 

Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided. 

Seriously, that is about the dumbest thing I have seen any user in these threads, do.



> Lack of sufficient ammunition further exacerbated the CPVFís inferiority in firepower and directly affected the outcome of its offensives by greatly reducing its abilities to annihilate enemy formations


----------



## harmonica

rightwinger said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wore us out, just like they did the French.
> 
> Americans got tired of hearing......Just give us 100,000 more men and we will be home by Christmas......year after year after year.
Click to expand...

..don't forget the French Gen. Navarre said  ''I can see the light at the end of the tunnel''
..so did an American politician --hahahahhahahahaa
..it's been linked in this thread
here it is:




__





						Remembrance: Light at the End of the Tunnel - The Digital Journalist
					

Dirck Halstead presents The Digital Journalist:  A Multimedia Magazine for Photojournalism in the Digital Age




					digitaljournalist.org
				



...some people are just stupid--keep doing the same stupid thing--more troops--a little more--more --almost there--light at the end of the tunnel


----------



## harmonica

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wore us out, just like they did the French.
> 
> Americans got tired of hearing......Just give us 100,000 more men and we will be home by Christmas......year after year after year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..don't forget the French Gen. Navarre said  ''I can see the light at the end of the tunnel''
> ..so did an American politician --hahahahhahahahaa
> ..it's been linked in this thread
> here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remembrance: Light at the End of the Tunnel - The Digital Journalist
> 
> 
> Dirck Halstead presents The Digital Journalist:  A Multimedia Magazine for Photojournalism in the Digital Age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> digitaljournalist.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...some people are just stupid--keep doing the same stupid thing--more troops--a little more--more --almost there--light at the end of the tunnel
Click to expand...

says in the link Westmoreland said it also--------hahahahahahahahahah


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> '''''''''. It was* by far the worst military debacle* the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
> 
> 
> The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the link you provided, contradicts your latest google search. Which one of your links are we suppose to believe?
> 
> It is obvious, you are reading the link and description to a google search then posting without reading or putting any effort into understanding what you just linked to. I have been quoting your link! You are now arguing against what you provided as accurate facts!
> 
> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> 
> Seriously, that is about the dumbest thing I have seen any user in these threads, do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lack of sufficient ammunition further exacerbated the CPVFís inferiority in firepower and directly affected the outcome of its offensives by greatly reducing its abilities to annihilate enemy formations
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
hahahahhahahahahahaha


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha


Like I said, I am using your link. You are responding to quotes from your link. You are arguing with yourself in your own OP. 

Pure stupidity on your part. Post ha, ha, ha, all you want. You do not fool me, you are sitting in your chair seething mad, grasping at google searches, without reading them, posting the link, hoping somehow you save yourself. You are truly pathetic. 

And do not think I sit here and laugh. I do not, I find fools such are yourself sad pathetic human beings. 

No my friend, if you had half a brain you would not be laughing, hence I give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not laughing.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am using your link. You are responding to quotes from your link. You are arguing with yourself in your own OP.
> 
> Pure stupidity on your part. Post ha, ha, ha, all you want. You do not fool me, you are sitting in your chair seething mad, grasping at google searches, without reading them, posting the link, hoping somehow you save yourself. You are truly pathetic.
> 
> And do not think I sit here and laugh. I do not, I find fools such are yourself sad pathetic human beings.
> 
> No my friend, if you had half a brain you would not be laughing, hence I give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not laughing.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahahaha
at least I post evidence and not babblecrap


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahahhahahahahaha
> at least I post evidence and not babblecrap


This comment of you made is evidence? It is not babblecrap. I have only quoted your link. You are now claiming your link is babblecrap? That would make you a complete moron. I quote your link and you call it babblecrap.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahaha
> at least I post evidence and not babblecrap
> 
> 
> 
> This comment of you made is evidence? It is not babblecrap. I have only quoted your link. You are now claiming your link is babblecrap? That would make you a complete moron. I quote your link and you call it babblecrap.
Click to expand...

..AND I just found that JFK quote a few days ago--long after I started this thread ----icing on the cake


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha


All my quotes come from your link. I have not posted a link. I just quote from what you provide to show that you have not read your link. To show that you are no smarter than your google search. That you are so lazy, you do not read what you link to.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> All my quotes come from your link. I have not posted a link. I just quote from what you provide to show that you have not read your link. To show that you are no smarter than your google search. That you are so lazy, you do not read what you link to.
Click to expand...

..is that why win won in Vietnam????---FYI--we lost


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> All my quotes come from your link. I have not posted a link. I just quote from what you provide to show that you have not read your link. To show that you are no smarter than your google search. That you are so lazy, you do not read what you link to.
Click to expand...

..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..AND I just found that JFK quote a few days ago--long after I started this thread ----icing on the cake


I do not see a JFK quote. Are you drinking, are you drunk? I have not responded to a JFK quote. You obviously have no idea of what is going on in your own, OP.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..is that why win won in Vietnam????---FYI--we lost


Was the war in Vietnam winnable, that is your OP? Do you seriously not understand the premise of your own thread?


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> All my quotes come from your link. I have not posted a link. I just quote from what you provide to show that you have not read your link. To show that you are no smarter than your google search. That you are so lazy, you do not read what you link to.
Click to expand...

AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''








						McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
					






					www.nytimes.com
				




..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
BOOOOM BABY


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..is that why win won in Vietnam????---FYI--we lost
> 
> 
> 
> Was the war in Vietnam winnable, that is your OP? Do you seriously not understand the premise of your own thread?
Click to expand...

no I don't 
hahahahhahahahahahahah


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not


???? Fro the second time, I have never replied to a quote you made from JFK, I do not see that quote at all. You have no idea who said what in your own OP. 

To use your words. You are babbling.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..is that why win won in Vietnam????---FYI--we lost
> 
> 
> 
> Was the war in Vietnam winnable, that is your OP? Do you seriously not understand the premise of your own thread?
Click to expand...

same link:
''''''In his book, Mr. McNamara says the ultimate cause of failure in Asia lay with the South Vietnamese. Echoing what both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Johnson said, Mr. McNamara states that it *was the Asians' war, ultimately, to win or lose.'*''''''''

Mc and JFK said it was the Asian's war!!!!!!!
DOUBLE BOOM BABY


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Fro the second time, I have never replied to a quote you made from JFK, I do not see that quote at all. You have no idea who said what in your own OP.
> 
> To use your words. You are babbling.
Click to expand...

.........JFK said the South Vietnamese had to win the war--the US could not win it for them


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Fro the second time, I have never replied to a quote you made from JFK, I do not see that quote at all. You have no idea who said what in your own OP.
> 
> To use your words. You are babbling.
Click to expand...

.....and---and --the BIG key to what JFK said---he said it long BEFORE we sent large units over there--BEFORE we got massively involved--BEFORE TET/etc


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY


Again, you prove that all you have is your opinion that you constantly google search. You just linked to an article we can not even read because it is blocked by a demand to pay to see. 

Like my very first comment stated. You do not know a thing about what you are talking about. You have yet to engage. You search your opinion, link, and print your idiotic hahahahaha. 

All you have done is proven you are low intelligence. Google searching your opinion and not even reading/following the link. Just linking if the description seems to agree with your opinion. 

A google search will result in links to thousands of opinions. That is all you have proved.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass they sneak attacked then Mcarthur landed at Inchon and put the run on the little bastards right back across the border where they came from and if Mcarthur had had his way he'd have run the little bastards all the way to Pieking as it was called then. You're obviously a real dumbass when it comes to history. I suppose in your idiotic feeble mind the South won the civil war because they won most of the battles at the beginning. BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too, you hopeless dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah
Click to expand...

We fought the Chinese in Korea until they broke and ran screaming and crying back over the border leaving massive piles of dead Chinese behind. History. Sounds like a win to me.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Fro the second time, I have never replied to a quote you made from JFK, I do not see that quote at all. You have no idea who said what in your own OP.
> 
> To use your words. You are babbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....and---and --the BIG key to what JFK said---he said it long BEFORE we sent large units over there--BEFORE we got massively involved--BEFORE TET/etc
Click to expand...

JFK said nothing that pertains to the topic at hand.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> .....and---and --the BIG key to what JFK said---he said it long BEFORE we sent large units over there--BEFORE we got massively involved--BEFORE TET/etc


Let me quote your link again, that you provided about Korea. We were going back and forth on Korea until you figured out I was quoting your link that shows you are wrong. Your link proves you wrong. Let that sink into your skull. 



> UNC air strikes also succeeded in crippling the CPVFís logistical support of its combat formations.  During the 4th offensive, the UNC had reduced the CPVFís material re-supply by 60-70 percent.  By April 1951, the CPVF supply lines, which had achieved a length of 300-400 kilometers, suffered continual disruption and CPVF engineers were unable to keep the Yalu River bridges operational due to UNC air strikes.  UNC air raids also caused CPVF supply units to lose contact with the combat formations and further delayed the delivery of much-needed supplies.  Though the Chinese expanded their air forces in response, they were unable to project this air power to the forward battle areas.  The same UNC air strikes, which impeded the re-supply of CPVF combat formations, rendered the Chinese incapable of supplying fuel and ammunition to forward air bases in quantities sufficient to support forward basing of their fighter aircraft.  As a result, they were forced to remain in the rear, where they could not provide effective air cover


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah


From harmonica's link. That is, from the link that harmonica posted thinking it showed us losing to china in korea.

"  The same UNC air strikes, which impeded the re-supply of CPVF combat formations, rendered the Chinese incapable of supplying fuel and ammunition to forward air bases in quantities sufficient to support forward basing of their fighter aircraft.  As a result, they were forced to remain in the rear, where they could not provide effective air cover.229Reduced supply had a concomitant effect on combat operations.  Not only did CPVF units find it impossible to sustain their offensive operations without rations, but they also suffered grievous casualties due to exposure to the elements.  The effects of the CPVFís inability to provide adequate winter clothing reached critical proportions during the 3rd offensive. Cold weather injuries rendered the entire Chinese 586th Infantry Regiment (196th Infantry Division) 228 Zhang, Maoís Military Romanticism, p. 130. 229 Xiaobing Li, Maoís Generals Remember, pp. 24, 124-125. 

79 combat ineffective.  The 116th Infantry Division suffered over 2,000 casualties to exposure.  Many other regiments and battalions also reported they were combat ineffective and some divisions reported that the extreme cold had reduced them to 50 percent strength"


----------



## LuckyDuck

harmonica said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems with that concept.
> 1.  We had completely destroyed the North Vietnam's guerilla units called, Viet Cong.  That left only the NVA army to finish off.
> 2.  Technically we weren't losing the war on the ground in Vietnam.  We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts).  This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war.  Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> Having said all that, the one thing that was despicable, was how we got into the war in the first place.  It was based upon a lie.  That said, once we were actually committed to the war, we should have done two things, not giving the media unrestricted access to filming and letting the military go full out and not allow the civilian administration to pick and choose the targets.  It essentially put handcuffs on how the military could operate. Those same idiotic restrictions were done via the Obama administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..it would not have mattered if the military had no restrictions - unwinnable
> .
Click to expand...

Well, we will agree to disagree on this.  That's all.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah


From your link harmonica

*Lack of sufficient ammunition further exacerbated the CPVFís inferiority in firepower and directly affected the outcome of its offensives by greatly reducing its abilities to annihilate enemy formations.  Though the Chinese proved highly adept at infiltrating and isolating UNC units, they were rarely able to eliminate them.231  This deficiency manifests itself again and again throughout the Chinese 3rd, 4th and 5th offensives. *


----------



## LuckyDuck

elektra said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Two problems with that concept.
> 1.  We had completely destroyed the North Vietnam's guerilla units called, Viet Cong.  That left only the NVA army to finish off.
> 2.  Technically we weren't losing the war on the ground in Vietnam.  We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts).  This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war.  Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> Having said all that, the one thing that was despicable, was how we got into the war in the first place.  It was based upon a lie.  That said, once we were actually committed to the war, we should have done two things, not giving the media unrestricted access to filming and letting the military go full out and not allow the civilian administration to pick and choose the targets.  It essentially put handcuffs on how the military could operate. Those same idiotic restrictions were done via the Obama administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what lie said by who?
Click to expand...

President Johnson, claimed that the North Vietnam military attacked the U.S.S. Maddox, which through an eventual investigation, was proven wrong.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah


Again from you link, 

*These deficiencies were the direct result of Maoís exaggeration of CPVF and NKPA abilities.  Likewise, he grossly under estimated the abilities of the UNC.  Though Peng and his subordinate commanders quickly developed a healthy respect for the UNC forces opposing them, Mao refused to acknowledge the CPVFís difficulties and continued to urge them on.  The result was an ever-increasing reduction in the combat capabilities of the CPVF at a time when China needed these qualities most.  The UNCís expanding forces and capabilities now forced China to the negotiating table.*


----------



## LuckyDuck

rightwinger said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
Click to expand...

The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you fked up there--again........
> ..we lost Cambodia, Vietnam, AND Laos to communism   AND Cuba---AND China....guess what?? take a guess.......................................................................................the US is OK!!!..we are still here!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...if anything, the Vietnam war not only wasted lives but a lot of $$$ that could've been spent in the US = strengthening the US.....Vietnam made the US less strong:
> -many countries saw the UNJUSTIFIED destruction and deaths we caused
> -the US was seen as WEAK/vulnerable because we couldn't win/lost
Click to expand...

Get a clue, most other people understand the concept that you cannot lose what you never had.
We lost far more money and lives over the years trying to hold in place rather than going ahead and winning in a few weeks.
The countries of the world saw the UNJUSTIFIED death and destruction cause by *Communist* aggression and greed.
The US was seen to be a treacherous ally and rightly so.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody can be as stupid as you yet here you are literally, posting links to counter the link you provided.
> hahahahhahahahahahaha
> 
> 
> 
> All my quotes come from your link. I have not posted a link. I just quote from what you provide to show that you have not read your link. To show that you are no smarter than your google search. That you are so lazy, you do not read what you link to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not
Click to expand...

Only because the US never tried.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we won most of the battles--and that crosschecks JFK's quote =THEY had to win it--the US could not
> 
> 
> 
> ???? Fro the second time, I have never replied to a quote you made from JFK, I do not see that quote at all. You have no idea who said what in your own OP.
> 
> To use your words. You are babbling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .........JFK said the South Vietnamese had to win the war--the US could not win it for them
Click to expand...

And that was an opinion that was probably true at that time. He did NOT say the war was unwinable. In '63 we were advising; not fighting a war. Even when we were fighting later on we were not fighting to win. The politicians didn't allow us to do that and that certainly doesn't mean we couldn't have had we been allow to try. Nor does it mean the South couldn't have won had we kept our promises to them.
It should also be remembered that while S. Vietnam was a drain on the US economy N. Vietnam was a drain on the economies of the USSR and Communist China. Which may have proved decisive in the collapse of the USSR and the favorable end of the cold war.


----------



## rightwinger

elektra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giap himself admitted they were a spent force after the attack. But they won the PR war, which is the real reason why America lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wore us out, just like they did the French.
> 
> Americans got tired of hearing......Just give us 100,000 more men and we will be home by Christmas......year after year after year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is truth in what you say but we screwed the french over. We either never should of supported the french or once committed we should of given 100%.
Click to expand...

France created the problem, then dumped it on us.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY


Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.

I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.


----------



## rightwinger

9thIDdoc said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
Click to expand...


We turned a Civil War in Vietnam into a Cold War against Communism.

Beating Communism regardless of the cost was not warranted. 
The fear of Communism was not worth 2 million lives.

And with 45 years of a Communist Vietnam, we got to see that it was not worth winning


----------



## elektra

rightwinger said:


> France created the problem, then dumped it on us.


Did France create the problem? Sadly, after World War II the only way France maintained forces in Indochina was through our funding. Our supplying of Military equipment. It seems in that sense we created the problem. Further, we had a deal with France that nobody would negotiate a truce or ceasefire or the end of either the Korean War or the Vietnam War separately. We did just that, negotiated the end of the Korean war while France was fighting Vietnam. That allowed the Chinese to divert all their forces to Dien Bien Phu, outnumbering, surrounding, and forcing the surrender of the French. The French relied on us for supplies. The French did not have an Air Force. What they did have we gave them. They did not have the airplanes to resupply. They were under siege. We should of gave the French all the supplies they needed. We should of gave them every airplane at our disposal. We betrayed our ally. The French, because we withdrew support they had grown to depend on, had to negotiate a surrender. While politicians bickered and pleaded, soldiers were dying on the ground. 

Eisenhower, I have no respect for him.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We turned a Civil War in Vietnam into a Cold War against Communism.
> 
> Beating Communism regardless of the cost was not warranted.
> The fear of Communism was not worth 2 million lives.
> 
> And with 45 years of a Communist Vietnam, we got to see that it was not worth winning
Click to expand...


That's debatable.   If you seriously don't care about mass slaughter of people, then you are right.

The communists slaughtered, and starved, millions of people.   We can see today the difference between North and South Korea.   There could have been a free, prosperous South Vietnam today.

But if you are left-winger, and love watching people killed because they have eye glasses, and don't care at all about freedom....

Then you are right, there was no value to the Vietnamese, and letting them die, so that you yourself never have to do anything difficult, would have been the right options for a self-centered and spoiled American brat.


----------



## 9thIDdoc




----------



## 9thIDdoc




----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass they sneak attacked then Mcarthur landed at Inchon and put the run on the little bastards right back across the border where they came from and if Mcarthur had had his way he'd have run the little bastards all the way to Pieking as it was called then. You're obviously a real dumbass when it comes to history. I suppose in your idiotic feeble mind the South won the civil war because they won most of the battles at the beginning. BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too, you hopeless dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah
Click to expand...

Look you dumb ass we beat the Chinese in Korea. It was a POLITICAL DECISION not to retake North Korea. We could have done it as evidenced by the rampant slaughter we put on the Chinese , THEY kept attacking across the 38th parallel so we kept retaking the ground they were taking or we successfully defended against all the attacks for 3 damn years 51 52 and 53. WE CHOSE not to retake Korea.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Gen MacArthur said.
> In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th   parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.
> 
> That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel.  Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.
> 
> We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is only because they retreated.  If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.
> 
> Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army.  They were not hardly trained at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.
> 
> The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For a while till MacArther out flanked the assholes and was kicking their asses right back across the border until a democommie asshole of a president pulled him up short and fired him.
> If we had let Patton have his way the USSR wouldn't have existed for long and if we'd let Mcarthur have his way Red China would have been a long forgotten footnote by now too. Both were stopped by a democommie asshole excuse for a president, Truman who was afraid of his own shadow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..see the map above--China kicked OUR a$$es
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass they sneak attacked then Mcarthur landed at Inchon and put the run on the little bastards right back across the border where they came from and if Mcarthur had had his way he'd have run the little bastards all the way to Pieking as it was called then. You're obviously a real dumbass when it comes to history. I suppose in your idiotic feeble mind the South won the civil war because they won most of the battles at the beginning. BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too, you hopeless dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..we couldn't even beat the Chinese in Korea--how do you think the US could go all over China!!!!!!????
> hahahahahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look you dumb ass we beat the Chinese in Korea. It was a POLITICAL DECISION not to retake North Korea. We could have done it as evidenced by the rampant slaughter we put on the Chinese , THEY kept attacking across the 38th parallel so we kept retaking the ground they were taking or we successfully defended against all the attacks for 3 damn years 51 52 and 53. WE CHOSE not to retake Korea.
Click to expand...

stalemate:








						Definition of stalemate | Dictionary.com
					

Stalemate definition, a position of the pieces in which a player cannot move any piece except the king and cannot move the king without putting it in check. See more.




					www.dictionary.com
				



.'''''' It was by *far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces* suffered in the entire twentieth century. '''''








						Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea
					

The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.




					www.brookings.edu


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
Click to expand...

..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
Click to expand...

except, jfk and mcnamra are not quoted nor linked to. I already told you your link you did not read is broke. You are the worst author of an OP ever. You have not articulated one point.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except, jfk and mcnamra are not quoted nor linked to. I already told you your link you did not read is broke. You are the worst author of an OP ever. You have not articulated one point.
Click to expand...

......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd


----------



## rightwinger

LuckyDuck said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.
Click to expand...

So you oppose people learning the truth and being forced to accept propaganda from the military.  

Initially, the press was very supportive of the military. then it became clear the ground situation was not what was being reported.  Returning soldiers also told a different story than was being reported 

Future wars will have everything immediately posted on the internet without Govt censorship


----------



## Andylusion

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
Click to expand...


Bull.  JFK was wrong, and McNamara was wrong.

Again, there was not a single example where our troops in force, met their troops in force, and we didn't completely slaughter them.

You are just wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We turned a Civil War in Vietnam into a Cold War against Communism.
> 
> Beating Communism regardless of the cost was not warranted.
> The fear of Communism was not worth 2 million lives.
> 
> And with 45 years of a Communist Vietnam, we got to see that it was not worth winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable.   If you seriously don't care about mass slaughter of people, then you are right.
> 
> The communists slaughtered, and starved, millions of people.   We can see today the difference between North and South Korea.   There could have been a free, prosperous South Vietnam today.
> 
> But if you are left-winger, and love watching people killed because they have eye glasses, and don't care at all about freedom....
> 
> Then you are right, there was no value to the Vietnamese, and letting them die, so that you yourself never have to do anything difficult, would have been the right options for a self-centered and spoiled American brat.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the ground truth about Vietnam while clinging to your Cold War era anti communist rhetoric.

Communist Vietnam did not turn into the global terror that was being used as justification for war. 
It was not worth 2 million lives to prevent.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you oppose people learning the truth and being forced to accept propaganda from the military.
> 
> Initially, the press was very supportive of the military. then it became clear the ground situation was not what was being reported.  Returning soldiers also told a different story than was being reported
> 
> Future wars will have everything immediately posted on the internet without Govt censorship
Click to expand...


We have the truth. You are full of left-wing ideological garbage.

Yes, the military did lie about the realities on the ground.  I agree.  That was very bad because it undermined their trust.

Doesn't change anything we said.   There was no one time where our troops in force, met their troops, and lost.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We turned a Civil War in Vietnam into a Cold War against Communism.
> 
> Beating Communism regardless of the cost was not warranted.
> The fear of Communism was not worth 2 million lives.
> 
> And with 45 years of a Communist Vietnam, we got to see that it was not worth winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable.   If you seriously don't care about mass slaughter of people, then you are right.
> 
> The communists slaughtered, and starved, millions of people.   We can see today the difference between North and South Korea.   There could have been a free, prosperous South Vietnam today.
> 
> But if you are left-winger, and love watching people killed because they have eye glasses, and don't care at all about freedom....
> 
> Then you are right, there was no value to the Vietnamese, and letting them die, so that you yourself never have to do anything difficult, would have been the right options for a self-centered and spoiled American brat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignoring the ground truth about Vietnam while clinging to your Cold War era anti communist rhetoric.
> 
> Communist Vietnam did not turn into the global terror that was being used as justification for war.
> It was not worth 2 million lives to prevent.
Click to expand...


You have the right to be wrong.   We could have easily pushed into Hanoi and forced a surrender.   Easily.

Nixon forced them to the table, without pushing to Hanoi.  Why do think that is?  Because they knew if we really wanted to, we would, and they would be screwed.


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you oppose people learning the truth and being forced to accept propaganda from the military.
> 
> Initially, the press was very supportive of the military. then it became clear the ground situation was not what was being reported.  Returning soldiers also told a different story than was being reported
> 
> Future wars will have everything immediately posted on the internet without Govt censorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the truth. You are full of left-wing ideological garbage.
> 
> Yes, the military did lie about the realities on the ground.  I agree.  That was very bad because it undermined their trust.
> 
> Doesn't change anything we said.   There was no one time where our troops in force, met their troops, and lost.
Click to expand...

The military mislead the American people on the chances of winning the war.  
Walter Cronkite finally broke and said......This war is not going to end quickly, we are in for a long fight and need to reassess our role


----------



## rightwinger

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Korea and Vietnam showed the Soviet Union and Chinese we weren't going to roll over for them turning every country in Asia and possibly elsewhere COMMUNIST.  Those proxy wars ultimately helped us to win the Cold War and bankrupt the USSR.  Yes, they could have been waged better but our politicians feared a direct war with the super powers if we did win more decisive POLITICAL victories.  We kicked the enemies ass in both wars, especially Vietnam.  The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good god, you are really bringing up the Domino Theory
> The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong NEVER won a major engagement including Tet yet they were the ones that are in control now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame-ass government of the time allowed it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because our lame assed government got us involved in a war that we had no business being in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're an expert in international relations? Some folks feel the Cold War was worth winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We turned a Civil War in Vietnam into a Cold War against Communism.
> 
> Beating Communism regardless of the cost was not warranted.
> The fear of Communism was not worth 2 million lives.
> 
> And with 45 years of a Communist Vietnam, we got to see that it was not worth winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable.   If you seriously don't care about mass slaughter of people, then you are right.
> 
> The communists slaughtered, and starved, millions of people.   We can see today the difference between North and South Korea.   There could have been a free, prosperous South Vietnam today.
> 
> But if you are left-winger, and love watching people killed because they have eye glasses, and don't care at all about freedom....
> 
> Then you are right, there was no value to the Vietnamese, and letting them die, so that you yourself never have to do anything difficult, would have been the right options for a self-centered and spoiled American brat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignoring the ground truth about Vietnam while clinging to your Cold War era anti communist rhetoric.
> 
> Communist Vietnam did not turn into the global terror that was being used as justification for war.
> It was not worth 2 million lives to prevent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.   We could have easily pushed into Hanoi and forced a surrender.   Easily.
> 
> Nixon forced them to the table, without pushing to Hanoi.  Why do think that is?  Because they knew if we really wanted to, we would, and they would be screwed.
Click to expand...

Hanoi was bricks and mortar.  
N Vietnam did not rely on it for their survival.  Their military supply lines reached to Russia and China.  Taking Hanoi would not have caused surrender 
Invading N Vietnam would have led to China entering the war and escalated the number of US casualties


----------



## Camp

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you oppose people learning the truth and being forced to accept propaganda from the military.
> 
> Initially, the press was very supportive of the military. then it became clear the ground situation was not what was being reported.  Returning soldiers also told a different story than was being reported
> 
> Future wars will have everything immediately posted on the internet without Govt censorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the truth. You are full of left-wing ideological garbage.
> 
> Yes, the military did lie about the realities on the ground.  I agree.  That was very bad because it undermined their trust.
> 
> Doesn't change anything we said.   There was no one time where our troops in force, met their troops, and lost.
Click to expand...

Our definitions of victory and defeat were different than theirs. We used high body counts of enemy dead for declaring victory. The enemy knew 1,000 of their own killed was worth 100 American deaths. We would declare a victory of a battle and leave. A few weeks or months later the communist would retake the position, set booby traps, and challenge us to retake the hill or area of desolate jungle, again, for another hundred American lives. They were fighting for survival and national independence from foreign occupation and rulership. We were fighting for some abstract theories and unknown political ideas.  They were fighting French, Japanese, and Chinese for decades and decades. We were fighting for new reasons no one understood or cared about. Huge portions of the population we were allegedly fighting for hated us.  Our solution for peace was to leave.  Theirs was to make us leave.


----------



## elektra

[QUOTE="harmonica, post: 25077249, member:   = unwinnable
[/QUOUTE]
......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd
[/QUOTE]
It is your inept style of commenting that make it impossible to figure out what you are referring to. Try linking, quoting and commenting as well as making sure your links work. If you to lazy and stupid to do that your threads become jokes.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.


----------



## Camp

elektra said:


> [QUOTE="harmonica, post: 25077249, member:   = unwinnable
> [/QUOUTE]
> ......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd


It is your inept style of commenting that make it impossible to figure out what you are referring to. Try linking, quoting and commenting as well as making sure your links work. If you to lazy and stupid to do that your threads become jokes.
[/QUOTE]


This thread seems popular and far from a joke. It's running since 31 August and has almost 600 comments.  OP has made his points clear and concise. He seems to answer all questions thrown his way.


----------



## Andylusion

rightwinger said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you oppose people learning the truth and being forced to accept propaganda from the military.
> 
> Initially, the press was very supportive of the military. then it became clear the ground situation was not what was being reported.  Returning soldiers also told a different story than was being reported
> 
> Future wars will have everything immediately posted on the internet without Govt censorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the truth. You are full of left-wing ideological garbage.
> 
> Yes, the military did lie about the realities on the ground.  I agree.  That was very bad because it undermined their trust.
> 
> Doesn't change anything we said.   There was no one time where our troops in force, met their troops, and lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military mislead the American people on the chances of winning the war.
> Walter Cronkite finally broke and said......This war is not going to end quickly, we are in for a long fight and need to reassess our role
Click to expand...


Again... that was because we didn't push and attack the enemy.

Hey, if you go into a boxing match, with one hand tied behind your back, and your feet planted to the floor, so you can't move....... ya think you might be in for a long hard fight?

Yeah, you would be.  Because you placed rules on yourself, that prevented you from winning.

As I said before, we had so many stupid rules on our military.... it was ridiculous.   We had LBJ and his staff, individually approving bombing targets, and military assaults.

You can't win a war doing that.  You tell the military people, go win the war, and they... the people who actually know how to win a war, will go attack, bomb, assault whatever they see they need to attack and bomb.

You can't win saying "No no, you don't need to hit that target".  "No no, you don't need to attack that base".

This is what was going on.   So yeah, Cronkite was right under those conditions.   Under the way our idiotic government was trying to micromanage a war, yeah it would be a long hard fight, and you likely could not win.

But that was not because we couldn't win.   If they had allowed unrestricted war, and just plowed into North Vietnam, they would have folded like a deck of cards.

Again, the Tet Offensive proved this.  They lost the Tet Offensive.  That was a complete surprise attack with a large force, and they specifically avoided direct targets with high levels of American troops.... AND THEY STILL LOST.   The Tet Offensive severely crippled the North Vietnamese by any measure.

So you might ask... if it harmed them so bad, then why didn't we win?

Because we didn't march to Hanoi and win.  We never attacked the enemy.  We had so many stupid rules about where we could go, what we could bomb, how we could engage, it was impossible for us to win.

If we had simply let the military go, they would have flattened the N.Viet.  They had nothing on us.  Ever single time our troops met their troops in direct combat, we wrecked them.


----------



## Desperado

Andylusion said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We made the mistake of allowing complete and unrestricted access to the media on the battlefield (something we didn't repeat in subsequent conflicts). This brought the horror of war into the living rooms of millions of American families, with the result being a massive public resistance to further conflict in the war. Those public pressures, forced the administration to give in to that massive pressure and leave Vietnam to its own fate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the public would not have noticed 60,000 dead bodies  without the media telling them?
> 
> You think the public never would have asked WTF are we doing there?
> 
> 
> The problem is that the media stopped parroting the propaganda the military was feeding them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war violence on the publics televisions was a major contributor and had that not been happening, it's not that thousands of dead troops would have been missed, only that the unity in the U.S. against the war would have been fractured.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you oppose people learning the truth and being forced to accept propaganda from the military.
> 
> Initially, the press was very supportive of the military. then it became clear the ground situation was not what was being reported.  Returning soldiers also told a different story than was being reported
> 
> Future wars will have everything immediately posted on the internet without Govt censorship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have the truth. You are full of left-wing ideological garbage.
> 
> Yes, the military did lie about the realities on the ground.  I agree.  That was very bad because it undermined their trust.
> 
> Doesn't change anything we said.   There was no one time where our troops in force, met their troops, and lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military mislead the American people on the chances of winning the war.
> Walter Cronkite finally broke and said......This war is not going to end quickly, we are in for a long fight and need to reassess our role
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... that was because we didn't push and attack the enemy.
> 
> Hey, if you go into a boxing match, with one hand tied behind your back, and your feet planted to the floor, so you can't move....... ya think you might be in for a long hard fight?
> 
> Yeah, you would be.  Because you placed rules on yourself, that prevented you from winning.
> 
> As I said before, we had so many stupid rules on our military.... it was ridiculous.   We had LBJ and his staff, individually approving bombing targets, and military assaults.
> 
> You can't win a war doing that.  You tell the military people, go win the war, and they... the people who actually know how to win a war, will go attack, bomb, assault whatever they see they need to attack and bomb.
> 
> You can't win saying "No no, you don't need to hit that target".  "No no, you don't need to attack that base".
> 
> This is what was going on.   So yeah, Cronkite was right under those conditions.   Under the way our idiotic government was trying to micromanage a war, yeah it would be a long hard fight, and you likely could not win.
> 
> But that was not because we couldn't win.   If they had allowed unrestricted war, and just plowed into North Vietnam, they would have folded like a deck of cards.
> 
> Again, the Tet Offensive proved this.  They lost the Tet Offensive.  That was a complete surprise attack with a large force, and they specifically avoided direct targets with high levels of American troops.... AND THEY STILL LOST.   The Tet Offensive severely crippled the North Vietnamese by any measure.
> 
> So you might ask... if it harmed them so bad, then why didn't we win?
> 
> Because we didn't march to Hanoi and win.  We never attacked the enemy.  We had so many stupid rules about where we could go, what we could bomb, how we could engage, it was impossible for us to win.
> 
> If we had simply let the military go, they would have flattened the N.Viet.  They had nothing on us.  Ever single time our troops met their troops in direct combat, we wrecked them.
Click to expand...

You miss the point..... It doesn't matter what tactics we used or who approved them,,, We should never have been there in the first place.


----------



## Dick Foster

Desperado said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW we never lost a single battle in Vietnam so we must have won that one too,
> 
> 
> 
> now there is a record to be proud of,,,,, never lost a battle yet we lost the war.Are those Generals still in charge now?  With the way the wars in the Mid East are progressing it sure looks like it.
Click to expand...

That war was fought and lost on the streets of this country. Everyone but a simpleminded shitforbrains knows that much. In fact we had no damn business there in the first place at least not on the side we were on. If anything, we should have gone in their years before and kicked the damned frogs asses out.


----------



## elektra

Camp said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="harmonica, post: 25077249, member:   = unwinnable
> [/QUOUTE]
> ......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd
> 
> 
> 
> It is your inept style of commenting that make it impossible to figure out what you are referring to. Try linking, quoting and commenting as well as making sure your links work. If you to lazy and stupid to do that your threads become jokes.
Click to expand...



This thread seems popular and far from a joke. It's running since 31 August and has almost 600 comments.  OP has made his points clear and concise. He seems to answer all questions thrown his way.
[/QUOTE]
started without links, I challenged his premise. He did not answer with links or a qoute. I looked through the entire thread. Not one fact that substantiated his comment/comments about france.

in recent post harmonica provided a link to support his comments about the Korean conflict. When I quoted from Harmonica's link he argued I was wrong unwittingly, arguing againt a link he stated was factual.

You have your opinion.   

All i see is someone frantically. lazily.  using a google search. Neither quoting or reading what is in the link.

Maybe you are responding in the wrong thread, harmonica here, cant even check to make sure his links work.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
Click to expand...

As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.


Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you? 
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.


----------



## Desperado

9thIDdoc said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
Click to expand...

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich


----------



## Desperado

Desperado said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
> None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich
Click to expand...

hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Desperado said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
> None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich
Click to expand...

It wasn't a civil war. It was always about N.Vietnam aggression.
Rightly or wrongly we considered Communist Imperialism our business.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Desperado said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
> None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured
Click to expand...

So who said there was anything funny about it? I would be about the last one to say such a thing. I was an Army medic there then and some of those 5800+ died while I fought to keep them alive.


----------



## Desperado

9thIDdoc said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
> None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't a civil war. It was always about N.Vietnam aggression.
> Rightly or wrongly we considered Communist Imperialism our business.
Click to expand...

no matter how you look at it, Vietnam was a major mistake that cost us blood and money and it was not worth one American life.


----------



## Desperado

9thIDdoc said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
> None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who said there was anything funny about it? I would be about the last one to say such a thing.
Click to expand...

You did in the comment section of my post.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

9thIDdoc said:


> Who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?


Are you talking about American civilians ... or Vietnamese?

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!” Others created organizations like “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and the “GI Coffee House Movement,” which tried hard to reach out to, organize and defend GI resisters and conscientious objectors. The Anti-War Movement was NOT the enemy of drafted soldiers — the Military Industrial Complex and Establishment politicians of both parties were!

But the key factor in ending the war was _*Vietnamese*_ civilians, North and South, who overwhelmingly wanted independence from French, Japanese and American imperialism, and who were patriotically willing to fight and even die for it. They, initially at least, had backing from both China and the USSR. They could not be broken.

General Giap had _opposed_ the Tet Offensive initially. Vietnamese CP leader Le Duan and others had pushed it. It was no surprise Giap saw Tet as a military failure. He had often opposed premature attacks. He and all the hardened leaders of the Vietnamese struggle would _never_ have been willing to surrender. Giap and the others recognized it as a military failure, but a long term political success.

The people of Vietnam would have overwhelmingly elected Ho Chi Minh back in 1955 if the promised elections were held. Even Eisenhower admitted as much. They suffered “strategic hamlet” concentration camps, the greatest bombing campaign in world history, and their organizations and will remained intact. Despite the billions of dollars in bribery corrupting all who could be corrupted, the money spent by 550,000 young soldiers spent freely in Saigon bars and back alleys, the National Liberation forces fought on.

Big strong U.S. soldiers were cycled through camps for a year or so and then left crippled, high, or as mental and emotional basket cases, never even learning to speak Vietnamese, confused and scared shit, some acting like macho killers, leaving behind a country poisoned by agent orange and unexploded bombs. The U.S. lost, deserved to lose, and never should have been there in the first place. We were there because our “statesmen” refused to see the immense differences between Korea and Vietnam, were locked into their Cold War obsessions, thought they could bomb their way to victory, and hadn’t the courage to admit their mistakes once committed.

But “Tricky Dick” and Kissinger succeeded in finessing the inevitable collapse of the South Vietnamese regime and turning it into a Democratic “stab in the back” — at the same time as they cozied up to Communist China! China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and together we supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge genocide was by then widely known, and had only at great expense been overthrown by the new unified government of Vietnam ...

As time went on, the draft ended, the millions of Vietnamese dead were forgotten, and MIA and “Stab In the Back” propaganda myths took hold, with “Rambo” movies stoking an imperial mindset and a revenge psychology. As if they had invaded us! Not a penny of reparations paid to Vietnam. Yet back in 1919, again in 1945, again in 1955, Ho Chi Minh had shown he was a nationalist who sought good relations with the West. Ho and many of those who followed him were always willing to deal with the U.S. — *if we supported Vietnam’s National Liberation. * Ho Chi Minh was another Tito in the making. Unlike the U.S. leaders, he knew his history. He feared China great power bullying, just as Tito learned to fear and stand up to Stalin. But the U.S. never listened. Never learned. And many American people, especially Trump fanatics, are even stupider and more arrogant today than we were then.


----------



## Muhammed

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


I think some involvement to be a thorn in their side was a good idea. Like selling weapons to allies, sharing intelligence and training troops. However sending US soldiers into combat was a huge mistake. And LBJ enslaving American citizen to fight the war was just plain evil.


----------



## Desperado

The US should have been totally hands off Vietnam, no aid, military or otherwise.  We have to learn to let other countries fight it out between themselves with no help from the US.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Camp said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="harmonica, post: 25077249, member:   = unwinnable
> [/QUOUTE]
> ......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd
> 
> 
> 
> It is your inept style of commenting that make it impossible to figure out what you are referring to. Try linking, quoting and commenting as well as making sure your links work. If you to lazy and stupid to do that your threads become jokes.
Click to expand...



This thread seems popular and far from a joke. It's running since 31 August and has almost 600 comments.  OP has made his points clear and concise. He seems to answer all questions thrown his way.
[/QUOTE]
No actually he just claims his link proves something, then when a poster other then him uses HIS link to prove he is wrong he just claims they are lying or mistaken, IT IS HIS LINK, he provided it to supposedly support his position.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Desperado said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
> None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who said there was anything funny about it? I would be about the last one to say such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did in the comment section of my post.
Click to expand...

Didn't say the war was funny. I indicated your comment is funny. Because it is.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.
Click to expand...

BOOOOOMMM--AGAIN  George Ball ALSO said it was UNWINNABLE
JFK, McNamara and Ball!!!!!!!!!!   BOOOM and BOOOOOOM

'''''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, *no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy*.” Ball advised that the United States not commit any more troops, restrict the combat role of those already in place, and seek to negotiate a way out of the war.''''''''

*“It was an unwinnable war”*

''''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum*–and that we still would not win.*




__





						“It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
					






					adst.org
				



..they all said it....and we didn't win


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull.  JFK was wrong, and McNamara was wrong.
> 
> Again, there was not a single example where our troops in force, met their troops in force, and we didn't completely slaughter them.
> 
> You are just wrong.
Click to expand...

AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahhahahahaha:

*“It was an unwinnable war”*

''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”

''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*

they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!




__





						“It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
					






					adst.org


----------



## harmonica

...you people are babbling while I provide UNSTOPPABLE, SHOCKING [ to you ] undeniable, etc evidence


----------



## harmonica

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this


----------



## esalla

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


If you aren't going to use your real weapons, then stay home


----------



## harmonica

George Ball--the icing on top of the icing


----------



## harmonica

esalla said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If you aren't going to use your real weapons, then stay home
Click to expand...

.....most wars are not total wars = everything won't be used....
......yes, we should never have gone in there.....


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
> AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahhahahahaha:
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”
> 
> ''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*
> 
> they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org



It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!


> *George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs*


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about American civilians ... or Vietnamese?
> 
> The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!” Others created organizations like “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and the “GI Coffee House Movement,” which tried hard to reach out to, organize and defend GI resisters and conscientious objectors. The Anti-War Movement was NOT the enemy of drafted soldiers — the Military Industrial Complex and Establishment politicians of both parties were!
> 
> But the key factor in ending the war was _*Vietnamese*_ civilians, North and South, who overwhelmingly wanted independence from French, Japanese and American imperialism, and who were patriotically willing to fight and even die for it. They, initially at least, had backing from both China and the USSR. They could not be broken.
> 
> General Giap had _opposed_ the Tet Offensive initially. Vietnamese CP leader Le Duan and others had pushed it. It was no surprise Giap saw Tet as a military failure. He had often opposed premature attacks. He and all the hardened leaders of the Vietnamese struggle would _never_ have been willing to surrender. Giap and the others recognized it as a military failure, but a long term political success.
> 
> The people of Vietnam would have overwhelmingly elected Ho Chi Minh back in 1955 if the promised elections were held. Even Eisenhower admitted as much. They suffered “strategic hamlet” concentration camps, the greatest bombing campaign in world history, and their organizations and will remained intact. Despite the billions of dollars in bribery corrupting all who could be corrupted, the money spent by 550,000 young soldiers spent freely in Saigon bars and back alleys, the National Liberation forces fought on.
> 
> Big strong U.S. soldiers were cycled through camps for a year or so and then left crippled, high, or as mental and emotional basket cases, never even learning to speak Vietnamese, confused and scared shit, some acting like macho killers, leaving behind a country poisoned by agent orange and unexploded bombs. The U.S. lost, deserved to lose, and never should have been there in the first place. We were there because our “statesmen” refused to see the immense differences between Korea and Vietnam, were locked into their Cold War obsessions, thought they could bomb their way to victory, and hadn’t the courage to admit their mistakes once committed.
> 
> But “Tricky Dick” and Kissinger succeeded in finessing the inevitable collapse of the South Vietnamese regime and turning it into a Democratic “stab in the back” — at the same time as they cozied up to Communist China! China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and together we supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge genocide was by then widely known, and had only at great expense been overthrown by the new unified government of Vietnam ...
> 
> As time went on, the draft ended, the millions of Vietnamese dead were forgotten, and MIA and “Stab In the Back” propaganda myths took hold, with “Rambo” movies stoking an imperial mindset and a revenge psychology. As if they had invaded us! Not a penny of reparations paid to Vietnam. Yet back in 1919, again in 1945, again in 1955, Ho Chi Minh had shown he was a nationalist who sought good relations with the West. Ho and many of those who followed him were always willing to deal with the U.S. — *if we supported Vietnam’s National Liberation. * Ho Chi Minh was another Tito in the making. Unlike the U.S. leaders, he knew his history. He feared China great power bullying, just as Tito learned to fear and stand up to Stalin. But the U.S. never listened. Never learned. And many American people, especially Trump fanatics, are even stupider and more arrogant today than we were then.
Click to expand...

I was talking about civilians alleged to be American.
The anti-war movement was strongly pro-Communist, anti-American, and anti-soldier. I was stationed in San Francisco for over a year '68-'69 and I know whereof I speak. Flags of those actively engaged in killing our guys were waved in the faces of our troops and the US flag was defiled and burned. Young men many of whom had never been stationed outside the US were called "Baby Killer", spat on, cursed, assaulted and sometimes murdered. In addition the anti-war movement willingly and openly colluded with and served as a willing propaganda arm for N. Vietnam. For these reasons and many more members of the traitorous anti-war movement were almost universally hated by soldiers (even more so than the VC and NVA)  drafted and enlisted alike.
No, few S.Vietnamese (if any) were pro-N.Vietnam largely because of the continuing campaign of torture rape and murder (including and especially children)conducted  against S.Vietnamese civilians. Hue massacre ring any bells? The S. Vietnamese were very aware and appreciative of the boost in the economy Americans brought and not in favor of the bleak starvation  the communists promised much less the murder and "reeducation" camps.
There actually were very few differences between the Korean and Vietnam wars. Both were started by Communist aggression and Imperialism (the Communists are at least as Imperialistic as anyone).

_"As time went on, the draft ended, the millions of Vietnamese dead were forgotten,..."_
Just as many fully deserved to be.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this


Prove it.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

....after WW2, I know of NO wars where an invader has taken total control of that country, changed the country,etc......can you name some?
Korea, the US in Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, PG1 and 2, Arab-israeli-Wars, etc etc


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
> AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahhahahahaha:
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”
> 
> ''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*
> 
> they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!
> 
> 
> 
> *George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

and he was RIGHT all the time!!!
hahahahahhahaha


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
> AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahhahahahaha:
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”
> 
> ''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*
> 
> they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!
> 
> 
> 
> *George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

you can babble all day--but without proof it is still babble


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
> AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahhahahahaha:
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”
> 
> ''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*
> 
> they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!
> 
> 
> 
> *George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.....Morley Safer--also--- saw the writing on the wall ..I've linked his 1965 news clip


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOOOOOMMM--AGAIN  George Ball ALSO said it was UNWINNABLE
> JFK, McNamara and Ball!!!!!!!!!!   BOOOM and BOOOOOOM
> 
> '''''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, *no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy*.” Ball advised that the United States not commit any more troops, restrict the combat role of those already in place, and seek to negotiate a way out of the war.''''''''
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum*–and that we still would not win.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..they all said it....and we didn't win
Click to expand...

WTF is George Ball and (more importantly) why should anyone take his opinion as fact as you constantly do with all opinions you favor? Again opinion is not fact and you can't make it so.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOOOOOMMM--AGAIN  George Ball ALSO said it was UNWINNABLE
> JFK, McNamara and Ball!!!!!!!!!!   BOOOM and BOOOOOOM
> 
> '''''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, *no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy*.” Ball advised that the United States not commit any more troops, restrict the combat role of those already in place, and seek to negotiate a way out of the war.''''''''
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum*–and that we still would not win.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..they all said it....and we didn't win
Click to expand...

_"..they all said it....and we didn't win"_
Neither of those assertions is true.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOOOOOMMM--AGAIN  George Ball ALSO said it was UNWINNABLE
> JFK, McNamara and Ball!!!!!!!!!!   BOOOM and BOOOOOOM
> 
> '''''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, *no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy*.” Ball advised that the United States not commit any more troops, restrict the combat role of those already in place, and seek to negotiate a way out of the war.''''''''
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum*–and that we still would not win.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..they all said it....and we didn't win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"..they all said it....and we didn't win"_
> Neither of those assertions is true.
Click to expand...

ok--hahahhahahahhahahahahhahah


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this


_"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> .'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
> BOOOOM BABY
> 
> 
> 
> Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.
> 
> I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara  says it after......UNDENIABLE  = unwinnable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BOOOOOMMM--AGAIN  George Ball ALSO said it was UNWINNABLE
> JFK, McNamara and Ball!!!!!!!!!!   BOOOM and BOOOOOOM
> 
> '''''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, *no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy*.” Ball advised that the United States not commit any more troops, restrict the combat role of those already in place, and seek to negotiate a way out of the war.''''''''
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum*–and that we still would not win.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..they all said it....and we didn't win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"..they all said it....and we didn't win"_
> Neither of those assertions is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok--hahahhahahahhahahahahhahah
Click to expand...

Glad you agree.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> .....Morley Safer--also--- saw the writing on the wall ..I've linked his 1965 news clip


Who? 

Yes, we all know that you use google as your brain and believe any card you pull off the top of the deck of a google search is a wild card that wins your hand. 

Hardly a debate, just endless google searches shared as if they make you educated or smart. 

Bernard Fall was by far, a whole lot more intelligent than Safer. He also spent a whole lot more time living in and studying Vietnam as a political scientist. Any real historian or even amateur reads Bernard Fall. 

Yes, you have read google searches and can copy and paste. Did your monkey teach you that trick.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
Click to expand...

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
> AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahhahahahaha:
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”
> 
> ''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*
> 
> they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!
> 
> 
> 
> *George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.....no, we wouldn't want to include facts/evidence/etc--would we?..[ hahahhahah ] .you just want to babble


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
Click to expand...

.....hey----you just proved you don't know shit!!
......in WW2 it was GERMANY who started the war by INVADING Poland--and Germany Lost--so WW2 is evidence proving what I said!!  
..like I said---there is not many examples of a country invading another and totally winning---and WW2 is an example
....France did surrender---but not unconditionally ---and Germany still lost--France was free again


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
Click to expand...

..Germany also invaded Russia---guess who lost??? Germany FYI


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
Click to expand...

..Germany invaded Norway--and lost


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> you can babble all day--but without proof it is still babble


You quoted the Secretary of Agriculture. Had you actually made an intelligent argument that proves your opinion as fact, you would of re-quoted that argument. But you have not. You have simply proved your ignorance and stupidity. 

Like claiming the French were powerful, and a lesson we should of learned from? As I pointed out, they were weak after World War II, relying on the USA for an Air Force that was critical to winning. Your ignorant response was babble. An idiot projects. You babble yet accuse everyone of doing what we all clearly see you doing. 

How about your claim that our involvement in Vietnam was, 7 years? Not 8, 9, or 10, but 7? Over 7 but not over 20? How about I state our involvement goes back to 1845. What would you do? Call that babble or would you go to google scratching your head? 

Have you proved anything? Certainly not, not based on any education you have on the subject of Vietnam that your articulate in your own words. 

You simply act like a monkey, babbling, scratching your ass, asking for a banana and frantically chimping, screeching, flaying your arms wildly, like a monkey, who gets rewarded when they hit, "enter". Here is a treat for you, go ahead, get excited.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Morley Safer--also--- saw the writing on the wall ..I've linked his 1965 news clip
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> Yes, we all know that you use google as your brain and believe any card you pull off the top of the deck of a google search is a wild card that wins your hand.
> 
> Hardly a debate, just endless google searches shared as if they make you educated or smart.
> 
> Bernard Fall was by far, a whole lot more intelligent than Safer. He also spent a whole lot more time living in and studying Vietnam as a political scientist. Any real historian or even amateur reads Bernard Fall.
> 
> Yes, you have read google searches and can copy and paste. Did your monkey teach you that trick.
Click to expand...

...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum


This aint an Adult Forum. They have rules to protect the children that actually post here as well. And who is Morley Safer? A war studies researcher? Was he a political scientist? Was he a Secretary of War? Tell us, who you are relying on to make the argument you can not? Go ahead, tell us.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> *The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”*



9thIDdoc —

I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the _*history*_ of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.

The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.

There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned  rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!


The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.

It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in ..........  Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.


----------



## elektra

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the _*history*_ of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.
> 
> The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.
> 
> There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned  rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.
Click to expand...

Nice comment, but I am curious, seeings how this was a Democrat War, started and ran by Democrats. Reported on by the Democrats in the media. How is it rightwing propaganda?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
Click to expand...

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
> AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahhahahahaha:
> 
> *“It was an unwinnable war”*
> 
> ''''''''. *No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong*, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”
> 
> ''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–*and that we still would not win.''''''*
> 
> they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adst.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!
> 
> 
> 
> *George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....no, we wouldn't want to include facts/evidence/etc--would we?..[ hahahhahah ] .you just want to babble
Click to expand...

You have not provided a single fact JUST peoples opinion. And the FACTS are against you but you won't learn them because you are to stupid or arrogant to read them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum
> 
> 
> 
> This aint an Adult Forum. They have rules to protect the children that actually post here as well. And who is Morley Safer? A war studies researcher? Was he a political scientist? Was he a Secretary of War? Tell us, who you are relying on to make the argument you can not? Go ahead, tell us.
Click to expand...

He is a newsman.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the _*history*_ of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.
> 
> The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.
> 
> There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned  rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.
Click to expand...

Democrats started our military involvement and escalated it to 500000 troops, a Republican ended it.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

elektra said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the _*history*_ of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.
> 
> The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.
> 
> There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned  rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice comment, but I am curious, seeings how this was a Democrat War, started and ran by Democrats. Reported on by the Democrats in the media. How is it rightwing propaganda?
Click to expand...

“Rightwing” propaganda today probably means _Republican_ propaganda to you and most people nowadays, just as “Leftwing” propaganda means Democratic propaganda. Not my meaning at all. Perhaps I should have said “pro-war” or “pro-imperialist” propaganda to be clearer. The anti-war movement was already back then regularly denounced as “leftwing,” “traitorous” and “communistic,” even when it was moderate or even religious. Anti-war MLK was labeled a communist too ... at least by “extreme rightists.” I guess “rightwing” & “pro-war” seemed almost synonymous terms back then to describe war hawks. “Rightwing pro-war liberals” seemed the norm in the early and mid sixties. Of course most of us back then considered war hawks of any party “rightwing” & pro-Establishment. It didn’t matter much, at least to me, what _party_ they were in. Worth thinking about...


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
Click to expand...

Just no end to your ignorance.
World War II was not a single war. Dozens-possibly hundreds- of countries were invaded and had their governments replaced. Many of them more than once. Civil wars (Which Vietnam was NOT) can result in a change in government the same as any other wars. Since WW II nations in Africa, the middle East and South America have changed governments about as often as a stylish woman changes shoes. N. Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam more than once and also invaded Laos and Cambodia (more than once). Where else was N. Vietnam's "Ho Chi Minh's trail" and related bases located? If you ever took your nose out of Communist propaganda pamphlets long enough to open an actual history book you would know that even N. Vietnam now agrees with the basic facts. At the time N. Vietnam and all their little anti-war sympathizers claimed there were were NO N.Vietnamese in South Vietnam. But even they dropped that claim after their first full scale (failed) invasion. Catch up.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Germany also invaded Russia---guess who lost??? Germany FYI
Click to expand...

And then Russia invaded Germany and won as did the US Britain and several other countries.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the _*history*_ of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.
> 
> The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.
> 
> There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned  rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.
Click to expand...

I didn't and don't care about slogans. It is well known that slogans-both pro and con-are simply propaganda. I care about anti-american anti-soldier *actions* some of which I mentioned and you carefully avoided referring to. I am aware that some kids went to protests to party and have a good time and I don't consider them guilty of more than keeping bad company. There were more enlistees in Vietnam than draftees and the vast majority of both considered the anti-war protesters traitorous scum and still do. If you want to deny what I say or have said I want know how much of Vietnam you saw during those times. How many S. Vietnamese you spent time with and talked to. How much time did you spend talking with American soldiers and learning their views? If you want to talk about liars we need to talk about serious liars like John Kerry Jane Fonda and the rest of the thoroughly discredited VVAW.



 


Oh look there's ole Hanoi Jane laughing it up with enemy soldiers during time of war. May she roast in Hell.


----------



## Mindful

Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..Germany also invaded Russia---guess who lost??? Germany FYI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then Russia invaded Germany and won as did the US Britain and several other countries.
Click to expand...

hahahhahhaa
1. Germany was the aggressor
2. countrie*S* --with an _*S*_--defeated Germany--including the 2 biggest--not ONE country --but many


----------



## harmonica

Mindful said:


> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.





9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just no end to your ignorance.
> World War II was not a single war. Dozens-possibly hundreds- of countries were invaded and had their governments replaced. Many of them more than once. Civil wars (Which Vietnam was NOT) can result in a change in government the same as any other wars. Since WW II nations in Africa, the middle East and South America have changed governments about as often as a stylish woman changes shoes. N. Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam more than once and also invaded Laos and Cambodia (more than once). Where else was N. Vietnam's "Ho Chi Minh's trail" and related bases located? If you ever took your nose out of Communist propaganda pamphlets long enough to open an actual history book you would know that even N. Vietnam now agrees with the basic facts. At the time N. Vietnam and all their little anti-war sympathizers claimed there were were NO N.Vietnamese in South Vietnam. But even they dropped that claim after their first full scale (failed) invasion. Catch up.
Click to expand...

it wasn't a single war???!!!  hahahah WTF is that???
....Germany LOST the war--Germany lost WW2
..you don't know shit about wars if you don't know most wars are not total, and most wars are contained
....remember, the point is not MANY wars are where a country takes over another/etc.....
-----so name some more post WW2 wars where a country invaded and totally took over another country?
..for every 1 you can name, I can name 2 dozen that are not like that
..I've got it covered ANY way you slice it


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum
> 
> 
> 
> This aint an Adult Forum. They have rules to protect the children that actually post here as well. And who is Morley Safer? A war studies researcher? Was he a political scientist? Was he a Secretary of War? Tell us, who you are relying on to make the argument you can not? Go ahead, tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a newsman.
Click to expand...

he covered NINE wars


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
Click to expand...

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''




__





						Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
					






					afe.easia.columbia.edu
				




.....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total


----------



## harmonica

'''''Nationwide elections to decide the future of Vietnam,''''
which the US refused to allow








						Vietnam War - French rule ended, Vietnam divided
					

Vietnam War - Vietnam War - French rule ended, Vietnam divided: The Vietnam War had its origins in the broader Indochina wars of the 1940s and ’50s, when nationalist groups such as Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh, inspired by Chinese and Soviet communism, fought the colonial rule first of Japan and then...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> '''''Nationwide elections to decide the future of Vietnam,''''
> which the US refused to allow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War - French rule ended, Vietnam divided
> 
> 
> Vietnam War - Vietnam War - French rule ended, Vietnam divided: The Vietnam War had its origins in the broader Indochina wars of the 1940s and ’50s, when nationalist groups such as Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh, inspired by Chinese and Soviet communism, fought the colonial rule first of Japan and then...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com


I showed this to be bullshit long since and wasted my time providing a link showing as much. You obviously don't read the content of your own links so I don't know why I thought you might read mine.

_" *Geneva Accords*, collection of documents relating to Indochina and issuing from the Geneva Conference of April 26–July 21, 1954, attended by representatives of Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, France, Laos, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Viet Minh (i.e., the North Vietnamese), and the State of Vietnam (i.e., the South Vietnamese). *The 10 documents—none of which were treaties binding the participants—consisted of 3 military agreements, 6 unilateral declarations, and a Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference (July 21, 1954). *
Following intensive negotiations, beginning on May 8, 1954, the day after the fall of the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu, agreements were finally signed on July 21 between the French and Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian representatives. 
*Execution of the agreements was to be supervised by a commission of representatives from India, Poland, and Canada.* A provision that was known as the Final Declaration stipulated that all-Vietnamese elections were to be held under the supervision of the committee before July 1956 to reunify the country.  
*Most of the nine participating countries pledged themselves to guarantee the agreements, but the United States made it clear that it was not bound by them. The South Vietnamese also withheld approval, and the Final Declaration was left unsigned by all parties.* The U.S. government undertook to build a separate anticommunist state in South Vietnam and in 1956 supported South Vietnam’s refusal to hold nationwide elections in consultation with North Vietnam." 








						Geneva Accords | history of Indochina
					

Geneva Accords, collection of documents relating to Indochina and issuing from the Geneva Conference of April 26–July 21, 1954, attended by representatives of Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, France, Laos, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Viet Minh (i.e., the



					www.britannica.com
				



_


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
Click to expand...

_.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

9thIDdoc —

What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


----------



## elektra

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back far before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule the decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but instead to sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Ho Chi Minh’s popular rule, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


The French could not win the war because Eisenhower betrayed the French. Would the French have lost at Dien Bien Phu had Eisenhower not agreed to a cease fire? We agreed that we would not agree to a seperate cease fire in Korea while the French fought in Vietnam. That one action freed all of the Chinese troops to move south and attack the French. Further, Eisenhower denied the French air support. I do not care what the long term prospects of peace, winning, whatever was in Vietnam, but during the siege of Dien Bien Phu was not a time to deny the French the supplies and air support they needed. 

Eisenhower? Never talked to or corresponded with? Certainly willful ignorance is no excuse, Eisenhower could of won the War during his term, by being an ally to the French, instead of betraying the French. 

A very sad time in our history, our betrayal of France. Our betrayal resulted in many fine French men, dying, needlessly.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
Click to expand...

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh  ahem.....please, patience .......ok
here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!


----------



## harmonica

Mindful said:


> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.


...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever

..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
3. the ARVN were next to useless
4. etc


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back far before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule the decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but instead to sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Ho Chi Minh’s popular rule, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The French could not win the war because Eisenhower betrayed the French. Would the French have lost at Dien Bien Phu had Eisenhower not agreed to a cease fire? We agreed that we would not agree to a seperate cease fire in Korea while the French fought in Vietnam. That one action freed all of the Chinese troops to move south and attack the French. Further, Eisenhower denied the French air support. I do not care what the long term prospects of peace, winning, whatever was in Vietnam, but during the siege of Dien Bien Phu was not a time to deny the French the supplies and air support they needed.
> 
> Eisenhower? Never talked to or corresponded with? Certainly willful ignorance is no excuse, Eisenhower could of won the War during his term, by being an ally to the French, instead of betraying the French.
> 
> A very sad time in our history, our betrayal of France. Our betrayal resulted in many fine French men, dying, needlessly.
Click to expand...

......hold it !!!!!!  you people have been SCREAMING that the* DEMOCRATS *were spineless/losers/didn't have the guts/etc?????!!!!!!??? it was the Dems fault !!!!!
Ike was not a Dem!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
..we gave the French $$$$$MILLIONS!!!!!
...hey pal----learn some tactics and history...they had the French in a '''barrel''''...no matter WTF we did, the French will lose......they were surrounded and on the LOW ground-dumbasses

......o--talking about googling--I've been reading and researching war for over 40 years...I was in the USMC for 8


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


And yet by 1969 almost NO ONE in South Vietnam wanted to be part of the North.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
> ... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
> ....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever
> 
> ..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
> ..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
> ...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
> 1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
> 2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
> 3. the ARVN were next to useless
> 4. etc
Click to expand...

After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> And yet by 1969 almost NO ONE in South Vietnam wanted to be part of the North.
Click to expand...

from the fake Marine
......no way you are a gunny.....you initiate insults --and they are childish ones...a real USMC gunny would be professional 

......what''s your point, anyway???!!!  the US is the one who did not want elections--like the American leftists and blacks today


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
> ... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
> ....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever
> 
> ..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
> ..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
> ...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
> 1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
> 2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
> 3. the ARVN were next to useless
> 4. etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.
Click to expand...

......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!!  how do you explain that?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

elektra said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back far before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule the decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but instead to sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Ho Chi Minh’s popular rule, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”
> 
> Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The French could not win the war because Eisenhower betrayed the French. Would the French have lost at Dien Bien Phu had Eisenhower not agreed to a cease fire? We agreed that we would not agree to a seperate cease fire in Korea while the French fought in Vietnam. That one action freed all of the Chinese troops to move south and attack the French. Further, Eisenhower denied the French air support. I do not care what the long term prospects of peace, winning, whatever was in Vietnam, but during the siege of Dien Bien Phu was not a time to deny the French the supplies and air support they needed.
> 
> Eisenhower? Never talked to or corresponded with? Certainly willful ignorance is no excuse, Eisenhower could of won the War during his term, by being an ally to the French, instead of betraying the French.
> 
> A very sad time in our history, our betrayal of France. Our betrayal resulted in many fine French men, dying, needlessly.
Click to expand...

What a joke. So now the “treason” in Vietnam begins not with Democrats, home front communist sympathizers or the liberal media, but with ... President Eisenhower. Old John Bircher stuff.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ......hold it !!!!!!  you people have been SCREAMING that the* DEMOCRATS *were spineless/losers/didn't have the guts/etc?????!!!!!!??? it was the Dems fault !!!!!
> Ike was not a Dem!!!!!!!
> hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
> ..we gave the French $$$$$MILLIONS!!!!!
> ...hey pal----learn some tactics and history...they had the French in a '''barrel''''...no matter WTF we did, the French will lose......they were surrounded and on the LOW ground-dumbasses
> 
> ......o--talking about googling--I've been reading and researching war for over 40 years...I was in the USMC for 8


I never said that about democrats, not once, nor did I imply it. What is it with DemoRATS. When confronted with the truth, the lie, scamper, and insult. Go ahead and direct us all to the post where you accuse me of saying what you believe. Again, you prove that you have no education, nor are interested in anything but what your opinion is and the google search you think supports it. 

Yes, the French were surrounded. By Chinese that packed up their weapons and ammunition from Korea and walked it on down to Vietnam. 

Unlike you, I do know history. I actually own and read books and quote directly from most things you will cherry pick from a google search.


----------



## elektra

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> What a joke. So now the “treason” in Vietnam begins not with Democrats, home front communist sympathizers or the liberal media, but with ... President Eisenhower. Old John Bircher stuff.


The joke is you never saw past the USA's Vietnam war. The joke is you never ever thought that our involvement was more than Kennedy and Johnson. The joke is when you get confronted with something you know nothing about you call it, "bircher". 

How many sources do you want. I can quote Bernard Fall, Two Viet-Nams or Eisenhower. You have another source other than the internet, chances are, if it is relevant I have the book. If not I can get the book. 

Have you read Fall? If you have not you have missed what every historian calls, mandatory reading. 

Eisenhower's own words, Mandate for Change 1953-1956, p338

"Toward the end of 1953, the effect of the termination of hostilities in Korea began to be felt in Indochina... The Chinese Communists now were able to spare greatly increased quantities of material in the form of guns and ammunition (largely supplied by the Soviets) for use in the Indochinese battle front. More advisers were being sent in and the Chinese were making available to the Viet-Minh logistical experience they had gained in the Korean war. "


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> from the fake Marine
> ......no way you are a gunny.....you initiate insults --and they are childish ones...a real USMC gunny would be professional
> 
> ......what''s your point, anyway???!!!  the US is the one who did not want elections--like the American leftists and blacks today


A fake Marine? According to you, a person who does not read past a google search result? A real Gunny does just that, chews you up and spits you out as an insult. Professional? Gunny's were built for war, not pussies.


----------



## elektra

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


So, you get your quote from a cherry picked google search, I paraphrase the same book and you call it, "old john bircher stuff". 

In my last comment, I quoted directly from the book I own. When I quote the book you introduced to this discussion through a google search, it is a joke? But it is not a joke for you? I guess you are eating a huge mouthful of foot, right now!


----------



## elektra

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.


And lets not leave out the Chinese colonization of Viet-Nam? 1000 years of Chinese rule. Or what about the Viet-Namese colonization of it's neighbors. Imperial Viet-Nam, why did you seem to not acknowledge that aspect of Viet-Nam?

When the French made a foothold in South Vietnam, it was Vietnamese a very short time. So short a time, it was barely Vietnamese. South of the 17 parallel was Vietnamese less time than the eastern seaboard of America, was american. 

So you are a bit more than incorrect when you speak of South Vietnam being the same as Vietnam north of the 17 parallel.


----------



## Dick Foster

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> And yet by 1969 almost NO ONE in South Vietnam wanted to be part of the North.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the fake Marine
> ......no way you are a gunny.....you initiate insults --and they are childish ones...a real USMC gunny would be professional
> 
> ......what''s your point, anyway???!!!  the US is the one who did not want elections--like the American leftists and blacks today
Click to expand...

The South Vietnamese did not want elections either. Dumb ass,Ho chi Min had already planned for disruption of all voting in the South he had no intention of allowing fair elections. As for the South they NEVER had problems fielding troops or security and the majority of the South DID NOT want Communist rule. And what insurgency there was was snuffed out in the Tet Offensive of 68. South Vietnam AGAIN FOR YOUR STUPID ASS, did NOT fall to insurgency it was invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
> ... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
> ....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever
> 
> ..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
> ..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
> ...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
> 1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
> 2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
> 3. the ARVN were next to useless
> 4. etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!!  how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

THEY INVADED with 25 DIVISIONS , GOD you are stupid read a fucking history book.


----------



## elektra

And, let us not forget, the Viet-Nam invited the French into the country. That they embraced the French religion, French trade, and any technology the French shared. They embraced French advisors and asked for French military. 

Of course that is a very condensed picture of the history but it is fact none the less.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh  ahem.....please, patience .......ok
> here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Still waiting for the two dozen wars you owe me for Vietnam. Want more? How about South Africa and Rhodesia? Now you owe me six dozen. Have an adult tell you how many that is.


----------



## Dick Foster

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
> ... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
> ....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever
> 
> ..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
> ..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
> ...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
> 1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
> 2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
> 3. the ARVN were next to useless
> 4. etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!!  how do you explain that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THEY INVADED with 25 DIVISIONS , GOD you are stupid read a fucking history book.
Click to expand...

He obviously has absolutely no fucking idea what a division is so you may as well be speaking in Greek to the idiot.
He probably thinks you're talking about some kind of a math problem having to do with long division and I doubt he's very good at math either.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


If you knew as much as you like to claim you would know that the area is very diverse and contains peoples with many different heritages cultures and and languages; not the single one you claim.
Educate yourself:montagnard tribes vietnam - Google Search 



 

The *Montagnard* are indigenous peoples of the Central Highlands of *Vietnam*. The French term *Montagnard* means "people of the mountain" and is a carryover from the French protectorate period in *Vietnam*.

*Montagnard (Vietnam) - Wikipedia*

FACTS ABOUT THE MINORITIES:
In Vietnam there are some 80 tribes speaking 36 languages. The French called them "*Montagnards*" - highland people. ... The government now officially labels them "national minorities". They call themselves by their ancient names - *Hmong*, Zao, Tay, Ming, Cua, Hre, M'nong...


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955


_"As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ..."_

If you were paying attention you would know that NOBODY signed nor committed to the final result of the convention. That makes your Communist butt buddies as much to "blame" for the lack of elections as the US.
Nobody cares about either your or Eisenhower's opinion about a non-existent treaty or non-existent vote.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dick Foster said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
Click to expand...

Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh wanted a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread on his radicalization, where I added a few comments and historical links: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh

Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam, but a true nationalist. He was a highly educated man who worked his way around the world as a youth, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a deeper working relationship with this man and his movement.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
Click to expand...

So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about American civilians ... or Vietnamese?
> 
> The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!” Others created organizations like “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and the “GI Coffee House Movement,” which tried hard to reach out to, organize and defend GI resisters and conscientious objectors. The Anti-War Movement was NOT the enemy of drafted soldiers — the Military Industrial Complex and Establishment politicians of both parties were!
> 
> But the key factor in ending the war was _*Vietnamese*_ civilians, North and South, who overwhelmingly wanted independence from French, Japanese and American imperialism, and who were patriotically willing to fight and even die for it. They, initially at least, had backing from both China and the USSR. They could not be broken.
> 
> General Giap had _opposed_ the Tet Offensive initially. Vietnamese CP leader Le Duan and others had pushed it. It was no surprise Giap saw Tet as a military failure. He had often opposed premature attacks. He and all the hardened leaders of the Vietnamese struggle would _never_ have been willing to surrender. Giap and the others recognized it as a military failure, but a long term political success.
> 
> The people of Vietnam would have overwhelmingly elected Ho Chi Minh back in 1955 if the promised elections were held. Even Eisenhower admitted as much. They suffered “strategic hamlet” concentration camps, the greatest bombing campaign in world history, and their organizations and will remained intact. Despite the billions of dollars in bribery corrupting all who could be corrupted, the money spent by 550,000 young soldiers spent freely in Saigon bars and back alleys, the National Liberation forces fought on.
> 
> Big strong U.S. soldiers were cycled through camps for a year or so and then left crippled, high, or as mental and emotional basket cases, never even learning to speak Vietnamese, confused and scared shit, some acting like macho killers, leaving behind a country poisoned by agent orange and unexploded bombs. The U.S. lost, deserved to lose, and never should have been there in the first place. We were there because our “statesmen” refused to see the immense differences between Korea and Vietnam, were locked into their Cold War obsessions, thought they could bomb their way to victory, and hadn’t the courage to admit their mistakes once committed.
> 
> But “Tricky Dick” and Kissinger succeeded in finessing the inevitable collapse of the South Vietnamese regime and turning it into a Democratic “stab in the back” — at the same time as they cozied up to Communist China! China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and together we supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge genocide was by then widely known, and had only at great expense been overthrown by the new unified government of Vietnam ...
> 
> As time went on, the draft ended, the millions of Vietnamese dead were forgotten, and MIA and “Stab In the Back” propaganda myths took hold, with “Rambo” movies stoking an imperial mindset and a revenge psychology. As if they had invaded us! Not a penny of reparations paid to Vietnam. Yet back in 1919, again in 1945, again in 1955, Ho Chi Minh had shown he was a nationalist who sought good relations with the West. Ho and many of those who followed him were always willing to deal with the U.S. — *if we supported Vietnam’s National Liberation. * Ho Chi Minh was another Tito in the making. Unlike the U.S. leaders, he knew his history. He feared China great power bullying, just as Tito learned to fear and stand up to Stalin. But the U.S. never listened. Never learned. And many American people, especially Trump fanatics, are even stupider and more arrogant today than we were then.
Click to expand...

A word of wisdom:
_"Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as “murder” in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be “Using deadly weapons inside city limits,” or “Creating a traffic hazard,” or “Endangering bystanders,” or other misdemeanor. However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct." _ Robert Heinlein


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


JFK knew Nam was a loser. He wanted to wait until he was safetly reelected to drop that loser. But people had other ideas and 57k slaughtered.

Kennedy was directly responsible with LBJ finishing it.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew as much as you like to claim you would know that the area is very diverse and contains peoples with many different heritages cultures and and languages; not the single one you claim.
> Educate yourself:montagnard tribes vietnam - Google Search
> View attachment 363839
> 
> The *Montagnard* are indigenous peoples of the Central Highlands of *Vietnam*. The French term *Montagnard* means "people of the mountain" and is a carryover from the French protectorate period in *Vietnam*.
> *Montagnard (Vietnam) - Wikipedia*
> 
> FACTS ABOUT THE MINORITIES:
> In Vietnam there are some 80 tribes speaking 36 languages. The French called them "*Montagnards*" - highland people. ... The government now officially labels them "national minorities". They call themselves by their ancient names - *Hmong*, Zao, Tay, Ming, Cua, Hre, M'nong...
Click to expand...

and---???


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> _"As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ..."_
> 
> If you were paying attention you would know that NOBODY signed nor committed to the final result of the convention. That makes your Communist butt buddies as much to "blame" for the lack of elections as the US.
> Nobody cares about either your or Eisenhower's opinion about a non-existent treaty or non-existent vote.
Click to expand...

.....but you people said it was ALL the Dems' fault----they didn't let us win !!!!!!!!!!!...now you mention a Republican 
...you people contradicted yourselves big time !!!  hahahhahahahaha


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh  ahem.....please, patience .......ok
> here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the two dozen wars you owe me for Vietnam. Want more? How about South Africa and Rhodesia? Now you owe me six dozen. Have an adult tell you how many that is.
Click to expand...


hey, plain and simple--most wars are not total and the combatants usually never take over a country...if you don't know that, I KNOW for a fact, you don't know shit !!
...most wars end in a cease fire *CONDITIONALLY*
PG1
Indo-Pak wars

Arab-Israeli wars (1948–49; 1956; 1967; 1973; 1982)
Korean War (1950–53)
Algerian War (1954–62)
War of Attrition (1969–70)
Dirty War (1976–83)
Afghan War (1978–92)
Iran-Iraq War (1980–88)
Falkland Islands War (1982)
Persian Gulf War (1990–91)
Bosnian conflict (1992–95)
Kosovo conflict (1998–99)

Afghanistan War (2001–14)
Iraq War (2003–11)
Syrian Civil War
Darfur
here's a ton of them:

List of wars: 1900–1944 - Wikipedia
etc etc etc


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh  ahem.....please, patience .......ok
> here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the two dozen wars you owe me for Vietnam. Want more? How about South Africa and Rhodesia? Now you owe me six dozen. Have an adult tell you how many that is.
Click to expand...

Rhodesia was a CIVIL conflict ---not between countries --

'''''Zimbabwe had originally been part of the British colony Rhodesia. It had been a self-governing *colony *since 1923, but with a white minority ruling over an African majority'''''


			https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/zimbabwe.htm
		

Rhodesia was a CIVIL conflict!!   Rhodesia was not a country--- was not recognized as a country








						Rhodesian Bush War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



..debating with you people is like debating with children --it's so easy to prove you wrong


----------



## elektra

Harmonica has proved that Viet-Nam was winnable. No where in harmonica's post is one intelligent comment that supports his opinion. At best harmonica gave us google search results he/she did not read nor in most cases, quote. We have seen how harmonica relied on those who lost the war. Relying on losers will always give the same answer, the same excuse. It was impossible. Our wins in the World Wars, our victories in Korea prove without a doubt that our soldiers are the best in the world and if left alone and supported, we destroy the enemy. Sad and pathetic are the fools who denigrate our abilities and revise our history.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

9thIDdoc said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
Click to expand...

What's up Doc?  Every time I get a Disagree here no one tells me why. I take it that they really agree but won't say it.

What say U?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> _"As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ..."_
> 
> If you were paying attention you would know that NOBODY signed nor committed to the final result of the convention. That makes your Communist butt buddies as much to "blame" for the lack of elections as the US.
> Nobody cares about either your or Eisenhower's opinion about a non-existent treaty or non-existent vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....but you people said it was ALL the Dems' fault----they didn't let us win !!!!!!!!!!!...now you mention a Republican
> ...you people contradicted yourselves big time !!!  hahahhahahahaha
Click to expand...

You can't much of anything right. I have mentioned politicians; not parties.


----------



## Dick Foster

9thIDdoc said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
Click to expand...

As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today. 
If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh  ahem.....please, patience .......ok
> here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the two dozen wars you owe me for Vietnam. Want more? How about South Africa and Rhodesia? Now you owe me six dozen. Have an adult tell you how many that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey, plain and simple--most wars are not total and the combatants usually never take over a country...if you don't know that, I KNOW for a fact, you don't know shit !!
> ...most wars end in a cease fire *CONDITIONALLY*
> PG1
> Indo-Pak wars
> 
> Arab-Israeli wars (1948–49; 1956; 1967; 1973; 1982)
> Korean War (1950–53)
> Algerian War (1954–62)
> War of Attrition (1969–70)
> Dirty War (1976–83)
> Afghan War (1978–92)
> Iran-Iraq War (1980–88)
> Falkland Islands War (1982)
> Persian Gulf War (1990–91)
> Bosnian conflict (1992–95)
> Kosovo conflict (1998–99)
> 
> Afghanistan War (2001–14)
> Iraq War (2003–11)
> Syrian Civil War
> Darfur
> here's a ton of them:
> 
> List of wars: 1900–1944 - Wikipedia
> etc etc etc
Click to expand...

A Civil war is just as much a war as any other.
A cease-fire does not end a war. 

"_...most wars end in a cease fire _*CONDITIONALLY"*

That statement is simply untrue. A cease-fire doesn't end a war it merely suspends the fighting as long as both sides adhere to the agreed upon conditions one of which is often a particular time period. In Vietnam is was usual to have a cease-fire for Tet. which is why the '68 Tet onslaught caught us by surprise. The US and S.Korea are still technically at war with N. Korea.
Few-if any-of the wars you list meet your criteria so you still owe me several doz.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh  ahem.....please, patience .......ok
> here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for the two dozen wars you owe me for Vietnam. Want more? How about South Africa and Rhodesia? Now you owe me six dozen. Have an adult tell you how many that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rhodesia was a CIVIL conflict ---not between countries --
> 
> '''''Zimbabwe had originally been part of the British colony Rhodesia. It had been a self-governing *colony *since 1923, but with a white minority ruling over an African majority'''''
> 
> 
> https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/zimbabwe.htm
> 
> 
> Rhodesia was a CIVIL conflict!!   Rhodesia was not a country--- was not recognized as a country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhodesian Bush War - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..debating with you people is like debating with children --it's so easy to prove you wrong
Click to expand...

As I said civil wars are still wars one way or the other. The "rebels" were largely from other countries and their supplies even more so. It could also be argued that it was an ideological (freedom vs Communism), race (black vs white) or religious (Islamic vs Christian) war. Whatever you what to call it it most certainly did not  end in cease-fire and the "rebels" simply overran the country and instituted their own government.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Persistence Of Memory said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's up Doc?  Every time I get a Disagree here no one tells me why. I take it that they really agree but won't say it.
> 
> What say U?
Click to expand...

When I use it it is because I disagree with what you posted (or at least most of what you posted).


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

9thIDdoc said:


> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's up Doc?  Every time I get a Disagree here no one tells me why. I take it that they really agree but won't say it.
> 
> What say U?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I use it it is because I disagree with what you posted (or at least most of what you posted).
Click to expand...

Ok. What do you disagree with?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dick Foster said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
> If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.
Click to expand...

No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.


----------



## Dick Foster

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was
> I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




9thIDdoc said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> 
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
> If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.
Click to expand...

At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya. 

I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Persistence Of Memory said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Persistence Of Memory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. *They had no choice*.
> 
> As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
> There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
> You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
> I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's up Doc?  Every time I get a Disagree here no one tells me why. I take it that they really agree but won't say it.
> 
> What say U?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I use it it is because I disagree with what you posted (or at least most of what you posted).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. What do you disagree with?
Click to expand...

I did not again state our points of disagreement because I had made them plain in my earlier posts and I tire of repeating myself. But since you asked:

_"JFK knew Nam was a loser. He wanted to wait until he was safetly reelected to drop that loser. But people had other ideas and 57k slaughtered.

Kennedy was directly responsible with LBJ finishing it."_

I disagree that JFK thought Vietnam was a "loser". Or that he intended to drop it. Or that it actually was a "loser". Or that we lost.
I disagree that we had anybody "slaughtered". We had troops that died accomplishing the mission their Country gave them.
LBJ didn't finish it; Nixon and the US Congress did.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Dick Foster said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was
> I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
> If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.
> 
> I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.
Click to expand...

We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern? 
Who were you with? When?


			https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was
> I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
> If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.
> 
> I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
> Who were you with? When?
> 
> 
> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb
Click to expand...

..let's review:
...the USMB generals and geniuses say ''they'' didn't let us win...we could just march to Hanoi like it's a parade [ I've read that in other forums, also ] ----hahahahahahah
..why not just LET us win!!!!!! *OMFG!!!!!!!! * why didn't LBJ, JFK, Nixon, McNamara, etc think of that???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...they are idiots compared to you and your buddies..........just invade the North---and WIN = it's that simple!!!!!
......


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was
> I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
> If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.
> 
> I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
> Who were you with? When?
> 
> 
> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..let's review:
> ...the USMB generals and geniuses say ''they'' didn't let us win...we could just march to Hanoi like it's a parade [ I've read that in other forums, also ] ----hahahahahahah
> ..why not just LET us win!!!!!! *OMFG!!!!!!!! * why didn't LBJ, JFK, Nixon, McNamara, etc think of that???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...they are idiots compared to you and your buddies..........just invade the North---and WIN = it's that simple!!!!!
> ......
Click to expand...

Just when I thought you would never be right about anything...


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
> ..we could've gone into the North and still no win
> 
> ..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this
> 
> 
> 
> _"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this" _
> Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> after WW2, not many--if at all
> 1. so,  you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
> a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said *AFTER* WW2
> ....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
> 2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afe.easia.columbia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....any way---blah blah--the *point* was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
> ..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
> ..most wars are contained and not total
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _.....it was a country that was separated
> ''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''_
> Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
> You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
> Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok ok .....let's review:
> ..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
> ...ok I'll  give you Nam, even though it was
> I see you dsagree with my vewpoints. You can disagree with me all you want but I was there too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc —
> 
> What *you* call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a *French colony*. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.
> 
> As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...
> 
> “*I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”*
> Source:  Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
> (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]
> 
> Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
> 
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american  presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not odd at all that the Vietnamese nationalist Ho Chi Minh sought a decent relationship with the U.S., and France too. Here is an interesting background USMB thread where I added my own comments and fascinating links:
> 
> Ho was actually something of a Francophile as a youth. His father, as I recall, was a Confucian scholar. Ho was not only the founder and leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam but a true nationalist. He was an educated man who worked his way around the world as a young man, including to the U.S. He understood U.S. racism, French colonialism, historic Chinese-Vietnamese conflicts and also their deep cultural connections. A real pity that our country missed so many opportunities to establish a working relationship with this man and his movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he became an aggressive Communist  Imperialist. Wonderful. A shame he didn't just commit suicide. So many fewer people would have been tortured and murdered. So many more people would have had basic human rights. You worship a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As for myself I always considered Ho a nationalist who cared more about his nation and his people than any political idelogy. Kinda like Trump does today. He wound up with the commies only because those assholes were more than willing to give him the help he was asking so as to betray him and his people later in the same way they are taking dumbshits in this country in today.
> If we had had the brains and the guts to give him the help he had asked us for first, Vietnam would be a free nation today and a shining example of free enterprise and free choice instead of yet another commie outpost as it now is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt that Ho was an opportunist who would take whatever help he could get from whoever he could get it from and his folks did indeed get substantial help from us during WW II in his fight against the Japanese. But I believe that Ho was all about Ho and would have used the trappings any form of government as long as he could be de facto leader/ruler/chairman/whatever. I think China was shocked to find that his personal brand of Communism was not theirs'. I think his actions once in power prove him a monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of WWII our frankophilan fuckstick president handed it right back over to the fucking worthless friggin frogs, dummy. Get a clue will ya.
> 
> I was there too ya know. In fact I was all over SEA and I do mean ALL of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We gave France back it's Country why not give back it's colonies? It would have been better to let all the many assorted factions (many of them Communist) fight it out to decide who would govern?
> Who were you with? When?
> 
> 
> https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=251883a245254dde832caf8350ecbaeb
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..let's review:
> ...the USMB generals and geniuses say ''they'' didn't let us win...we could just march to Hanoi like it's a parade [ I've read that in other forums, also ] ----hahahahahahah
> ..why not just LET us win!!!!!! *OMFG!!!!!!!! * why didn't LBJ, JFK, Nixon, McNamara, etc think of that???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...they are idiots compared to you and your buddies..........just invade the North---and WIN = it's that simple!!!!!
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just when I thought you would never be right about anything...
Click to expand...

just let them win!! WOW
you guys are good


----------



## harmonica

very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
..same with Nam


----------



## harmonica

..more proof of what I said about China, the US, and SK winning in the Korea war:
page 219
''the Chinese were trying to protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were successful'''


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam


Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> ..more proof of what I said about China, the US, and SK winning in the Korea war:
> page 219
> ''the Chinese were trying to protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were successful'''


More opinion. The fact is nobody invaded China and China had no good reason to believe anybody intended to. Aggression pure and simple.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..more proof of what I said about China, the US, and SK winning in the Korea war:
> page 219
> ''the Chinese were trying to protect their homeland from the potential threat of invasion and were successful'''
> 
> 
> 
> More opinion. The fact is nobody invaded China and China had no good reason to believe anybody intended to. Aggression pure and simple.
Click to expand...

not opinion but fact


----------



## gipper

Scamp said:


> We fell victim to one of the classic blunders.


Not really if you were a member of the MIC, then you did fantastic.


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
Click to expand...

....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses


----------



## 9thIDdoc

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
Click to expand...

You quoted his opinion; not fact. 
And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Quit engaging Harmonica he is incapable of rational thought, he does not even read his own links.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> Quit engaging Harmonica he is incapable of rational thought, he does not even read his own links.


you can't keep up---hahahahhahahahah


----------



## harmonica

9thIDdoc said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
Click to expand...

how little history you know
..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba 
...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
Click to expand...

Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
Click to expand...

both have KOREA in their names


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both have KOREA in their names
Click to expand...

So what two DIFFERENT Countries. You amaze me at just HOW FUCKING STUPID you are.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
Click to expand...

anyway--I've provided much evidence--you provide babble......
.....Vietnam unwinnable and we certainly did not want an unlimited war with China--that would've been disastrous for the US


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both have KOREA in their names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what two DIFFERENT Countries. You amaze me at just HOW FUCKING STUPID you are.
Click to expand...

..I keep providing more evidence and you don't like it...''stop engaging harmonica'''waaaaa waaaaaaa .....I'm providing MORE proof and you cry


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyway--I've provided much evidence--you provide babble......
> .....Vietnam unwinnable and we certainly did not want an unlimited war with China--that would've been disastrous for the US
Click to expand...

You do not even read your own links which usually disprove what ever you linked to prove. We won In Vietnam and we won In Korea. By 68 there was no insurgency left in South Vietnam and it fell in 75 NOT to an uprising or insurgency but to an INVASION of 25 North Vietnamese Divisions.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyway--I've provided much evidence--you provide babble......
> .....Vietnam unwinnable and we certainly did not want an unlimited war with China--that would've been disastrous for the US
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not even read your own links which usually disprove what ever you linked to prove. We won In Vietnam and we won In Korea. By 68 there was no insurgency left in South Vietnam and it fell in 75 NOT to an uprising or insurgency but to an INVASION of 25 North Vietnamese Divisions.
Click to expand...

..doesn't matter if we LOST to an insurgency or or an uprising or the NVA --we still lost --as stated--we couldn't stay there forever and the North knew that.
.....and as it states in the same book, and as I've stated many times--the North didn't have to win--just not lose ..it's real easy not to lose
....


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both have KOREA in their names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what two DIFFERENT Countries. You amaze me at just HOW FUCKING STUPID you are.
Click to expand...

.....like I said, they just reopened the library and I haven't been there for a long time....I just happened to see this book in the military section, so I picked it up...and I just got to that Bradley quote today


----------



## harmonica

..another interesting ''statistic page 223:
'''''by 1953......only 36% of the American public supported an unpopular war''''
..this is just plain common sense and logical----no end in sight/no objectives stated/etc ---just like Vietnam


----------



## AZrailwhale

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.
> 
> It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in ..........  Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.
Click to expand...

In 1845 I doubt there were more than five hundred members of the US Marines in total.  That's not much of an invasion force.


----------



## AZrailwhale

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.
> 
> 
> 
> ...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
> ... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
> ....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever
> 
> ..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
> ..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
> ...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
> 1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
> 2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
> 3. the ARVN were next to useless
> 4. etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!!  how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

That's simple, the Soviets took the totally defeated PAVN which was a light infantry force structured to fight a guerilla war, reequipped and retrained it into a modern combined arms mechanized army at no cost to the PRVN.  Gave it enormous amounts of brand new state-of-the -art weapons plus advisors and economic and material support and assisted it in invading the RVN in violation of the Paris Peace Accords.  That's how the North won the war.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.
> 
> It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in ..........  Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.
Click to expand...

..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra


----------



## AZrailwhale

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both have KOREA in their names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what two DIFFERENT Countries. You amaze me at just HOW FUCKING STUPID you are.
Click to expand...

So did the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) during the Cold War.  Do you dispute that they were totally different countries?


----------



## miketx

AZrailwhale said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.
> 
> It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in ..........  Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1845 I doubt there were more than five hundred members of the US Marines in total.  That's not much of an invasion force.
Click to expand...

If all the Marines were over there no wonder we lost the civil war!


----------



## harmonica

AZrailwhale said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> very respected Gen. Bradley on MacArthur's plans for the Korean War and escalating it:
> page 218 _Anatomy of Victory_
> MacArthur's plan would ''involve the country in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'''''
> ..same with Nam
> 
> 
> 
> Are you pretending that Gen. Bradley's *opinion* is fact? What exactly did he have to say about either Vietnam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....his quote was on Korea---which you people said we should start a massive war with China-you are geniuses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted his opinion; not fact.
> And history says that China started a war with us when it launched an unprovoked surprise attack against our troops. WTF is "you people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how little history you know
> ..the US helped the nationalists in their civil war......then the US had troops near their border = threatening China = akin to Russian missiles in Cuba
> ...you people want a major war with China---500 million people/etc???!! VERY dumb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you FUCKING RETARD North and South Korea are 2 DIFFERENT Countries. When North Korea invaded it was NOT a civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> both have KOREA in their names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what two DIFFERENT Countries. You amaze me at just HOW FUCKING STUPID you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So did the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) during the Cold War.  Do you dispute that they were totally different countries?
Click to expand...

...they didn't go to war.....
'''''''According to an understanding reached between the United States and the Soviet Union in the last days of the war, Soviet troops would occupy the parts of* Korea *north of the 38th parallel and US troops would occupy those south of this dividing line''''''''








						Division of Korea - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




''''''This would leave the USSR occupying Korea north of the 38th parallel line, and the United States would occupy the country south of the 38th parallel line. This was the agreement made, and it was to remain in effect until the country could come to terms and agree upon some kind of unified form of government, to occupy the *entire country.*''''''








						Division of Korea (1945) After World War 2 Summary & Facts
					

When Japan surrendered to the Allies at the close of World War II, it brought along several other related incidences; one which was not related, and was not seen to come, was the division of Korea in to North Korea (the democrat people’s republic of Korea) and South Korea (the republic of...




					totallyhistory.com
				




civil war--plain and simple
hahahahhahaha
9thDoc shows how ''mature'' and stupid he is by his insults and mouth


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .



Americans always claim the government they are supporting is  "corrupt" if the conflict is not going our way.   By way of example,  can you name a single government the U.S. has supported since World War Two that the U.S. has not claimed was "corrupt"?

Thought not.


----------



## badbob85037

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


We won that war in1968 after the Tet Offensive. NVA                          suffered 55,000 killed or wounded, the Viet Cong were wiped out and the North were ready to surrender. Then they brought in their secret weapon, 

Jane Fonda, John Kerry and Walter Cronkite. Cronkite looked America in the eye saying we had lost the battle and could never win the war.  Jane Found set on an NVA anti aircraft gun saying 'I wish I had one of those suckers in my sight right now.' Sucker being an American Air Force pilot. Kerry with his mentor Ted 'leave you to drown' Kennedy went to Congress and Kerry was sworn in then lied to congress that American troops were eating dead burnt babies.

 Kerry then tried to cost us another war in Iraq. He said "They said there would be mass murder in Vietnam when we pulled out but it never happened. Never happened." 130,000 died in re-education camps. In our hurry to leave we left a list with the names of everyone that worked with the Phoenix Project. According to the French all were rounded up and murdered. All South Military officers  were blindfolded, hand cuffed, and put in the back of American duce and a halfs driven to a remote area and machine gunned with only one escaping. 

Never happened?! Kerry, Fonda, and Cronkite should have rotted from the trees long ago. We use to hang traitors now they infest our government the whole democrat, socialist, communist party We can't live with them and we can't kill them. Don't you think it's time we dispose of this waste?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.


----------



## Andylusion

Yup, what the above two posters said, is all true.   The Viet Cong by any measure was completely obliterated by the Tet Offensive.   The N.V. regular military had very few heavy armor and tanks, and we completely destroyed what they sent at us.

There was never a time, in the entire Vietnam war, where the enemy met our troops in direct combat and won.  They lost, and lost decisively every single time.

Had we simply pushed into North Vietnam, the entire country would have folded like a deck of cards.  They had nothing. We were absolutely slaughtering them at every encounter.

The only defeat we faced, was the defeatist of Left-wing socialists that demanded we let our allies be slaughtered.


----------



## harmonica

badbob85037 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> We won that war in1968 after the Tet Offensive. NVA                          suffered 55,000 killed or wounded, the Viet Cong were wiped out and the North were ready to surrender. Then they brought in their secret weapon,
> 
> Jane Fonda, John Kerry and Walter Cronkite. Cronkite looked America in the eye saying we had lost the battle and could never win the war.  Jane Found set on an NVA anti aircraft gun saying 'I wish I had one of those suckers in my sight right now.' Sucker being an American Air Force pilot. Kerry with his mentor Ted 'leave you to drown' Kennedy went to Congress and Kerry was sworn in then lied to congress that American troops were eating dead burnt babies.
> 
> Kerry then tried to cost us another war in Iraq. He said "They said there would be mass murder in Vietnam when we pulled out but it never happened. Never happened." 130,000 died in re-education camps. In our hurry to leave we left a list with the names of everyone that worked with the Phoenix Project. According to the French all were rounded up and murdered. All South Military officers  were blindfolded, hand cuffed, and put in the back of American duce and a halfs driven to a remote area and machine gunned with only one escaping.
> 
> Never happened?! Kerry, Fonda, and Cronkite should have rotted from the trees long ago. We use to hang traitors now they infest our government the whole democrat, socialist, communist party We can't live with them and we can't kill them. Don't you think it's time we dispose of this waste?
Click to expand...

the war was not over in 1968 - no win


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans always claim the government they are supporting is  "corrupt" if the conflict is not going our way.   By way of example,  can you name a single government the U.S. has supported since World War Two that the U.S. has not claimed was "corrupt"?
> 
> Thought not.
Click to expand...

Kuwait
SKorean government
..anyway, your post is nonsensical


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

badbob85037 said:


> Kerry, Fonda, and Cronkite should have rotted from the trees long ago. We use to hang traitors now they infest our government the whole democrat, socialist, communist party We can't live with them and we can't kill them. Don't you think it's time we dispose of this waste?


*“Do you mean, General, that you were stabbed in the back?" Ludendorff's eyes lit up and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone. "Stabbed in the back?" he repeated. "Yes, that's it, exactly, we were stabbed in the back". And thus was born a legend which has never entirely perished.*

The phrase was to Ludendorff's liking, and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the "official" version, which led to it being spread throughout German society. It was picked up by right-wing political factions, and was even used by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the memoirs he wrote in the 1920s. Right-wing groups used it as a form of attack against the early Weimar Republic government ....










Stab-in-the-back myth - Wikipedia

_Rightwing German & Austrian cartoons. showing Weimar politicians and a caricatured Jew stabbing the German Army in the back. The blame for the German failure in WWI was placed upon a supposedly unpatriotic populace, traitorous Socialists and Bolsheviks, the Weimar Republic, and especially the Jews. Hitler effectively used such propaganda to try to seize power in 1923, and he succeeded ten years later._


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> Yup, what the above two posters said, is all true.   The Viet Cong by any measure was completely obliterated by the Tet Offensive.   The N.V. regular military had very few heavy armor and tanks, and we completely destroyed what they sent at us.
> 
> There was never a time, in the entire Vietnam war, where the enemy met our troops in direct combat and won.  They lost, and lost decisively every single time.
> 
> Had we simply pushed into North Vietnam, the entire country would have folded like a deck of cards.  They had nothing. We were absolutely slaughtering them at every encounter.
> 
> The only defeat we faced, was the defeatist of Left-wing socialists that demanded we let our allies be slaughtered.


1. so we go into the North...then how do we win?
2. yes--they were very smart/smarter/not stupid/etc:
''''' If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, *evade him*'''''
.https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2014/05/23/sun-tzus-33-best-pieces-of-leadership-advice/#2e3bb60c5e5e


----------



## Desperado

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


One of the worse mistakes in US history the US should never have been involved in that conflict in the first place.  Just another time we were conned by the Pentagon and their military contractor friends.


----------



## Desperado

rightwinger said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
Click to expand...

Yet we tucked tail and left in disgrace


----------



## harmonica

Tipsycatlover said:


> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.


....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win


----------



## harmonica

Andylusion said:


> Yup, what the above two posters said, is all true.   The Viet Cong by any measure was completely obliterated by the Tet Offensive.   The N.V. regular military had very few heavy armor and tanks, and we completely destroyed what they sent at us.
> 
> There was never a time, in the entire Vietnam war, where the enemy met our troops in direct combat and won.  They lost, and lost decisively every single time.
> 
> Had we simply pushed into North Vietnam, the entire country would have folded like a deck of cards.  They had nothing. We were absolutely slaughtering them at every encounter.
> 
> The only defeat we faced, was the defeatist of Left-wing socialists that demanded we let our allies be slaughtered.


folded like Afghanistan and Iraq did????!!!! hahahahahahhahaha


----------



## EvilCat Breath

harmonica said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
Click to expand...

Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.


----------



## harmonica

Tipsycatlover said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...

what?


----------



## JGalt

Tipsycatlover said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...


Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam." 

Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan. 

We showed them.


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
Click to expand...

at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!


----------



## JGalt

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
Click to expand...


It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
Click to expand...

I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives


----------



## harmonica

....the war in Afghanistan is ''messy/unending/''unwinnable''' --but we did have a reason to go in there.....
--how long have we been there?? 2001 !!!!!!!

--critical point - it's not a board game


----------



## JGalt

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
Click to expand...


As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?


----------



## elektra

y


AZrailwhale said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.
> 
> It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in ..........  Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1845 I doubt there were more than five hundred members of the US Marines in total.  That's not much of an invasion force.
Click to expand...

yet, in 1845 the Marines were in Viet-nam.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ....the war in Afghanistan is ''messy/unending/''unwinnable''' --but we did have a reason to go in there.....
> --how long have we been there?? 2001 !!!!!!!
> 
> --critical point - it's not a board game


wilson's war


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra


Yes, the USA's involvement in Viet-Nam was far more than 7 years. Our first involvement was well over a 100 years before Viet-Nam war. Your statement about over 7 years of involvement simply shows your ignorance on this topic. You believed our involvement was so short you could not even think you should look it up. At the very least we were up to our necks as early as 1954 through 1973? At least 19 years. Then again Truman began our assistance as early as 1947, can I say 26 years of involvement?


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
Click to expand...


During the U.S. involvement in Vietnam,  several times more Americans died from drunk drivers than were killed in the war. 

Deaths tolls are an extremely overdone statistic in the U.S.


----------



## JGalt

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the U.S. involvement in Vietnam,  several times more Americans died from drunk drivers than were killed in the war.
> 
> Deaths tolls are an extremely overdone statistic in the U.S.
Click to expand...


That is true. Statistically, our loss of 68,000 brave American soldiers compared to 1.1 million North Vietnamese troops sounds like a win to me. 

During WW2, we had only 407,300 military deaths from all causes. Meanwhile Germany had somewhere between 4.4 million and 5.3 million military deaths, and Japan had between 2.1 million and 2.3 million military deaths.

With the exception of the Soviet Union which had between 8-12 million military casualties, those who have the most military and civilian deaths during any war are generally considered the "loser."

World War II casualties - Wikipedia


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA's involvement in Viet-Nam was far more than 7 years. Our first involvement was well over a 100 years before Viet-Nam war. Your statement about over 7 years of involvement simply shows your ignorance on this topic. You believed our involvement was so short you could not even think you should look it up. At the very least we were up to our necks as early as 1954 through 1973? At least 19 years. Then again Truman began our assistance as early as 1947, can I say 26 years of involvement?
Click to expand...

.....and we were involved in Europe in WW1  ...South America and Central America...your point in nonsensical and very funny


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the U.S. involvement in Vietnam,  several times more Americans died from drunk drivers than were killed in the war.
> 
> Deaths tolls are an extremely overdone statistic in the U.S.
Click to expand...

comparing DUI to the Vietnam War----very silly/ridiculous/nonsensical = worthless


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
Click to expand...

......?? your point?


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> y
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US was involved with Vietnam for over *7 years*!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.
> 
> It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in ..........  Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1845 I doubt there were more than five hundred members of the US Marines in total.  That's not much of an invasion force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, in 1845 the Marines were in Viet-nam.
Click to expand...

and?  your point? that is not relevant to the Vietnam War


----------



## JGalt

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
Click to expand...


My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA's involvement in Viet-Nam was far more than 7 years. Our first involvement was well over a 100 years before Viet-Nam war. Your statement about over 7 years of involvement simply shows your ignorance on this topic. You believed our involvement was so short you could not even think you should look it up. At the very least we were up to our necks as early as 1954 through 1973? At least 19 years. Then again Truman began our assistance as early as 1947, can I say 26 years of involvement?
Click to expand...

100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
Click to expand...

sure--that's right--it was unwinnable.....but we did not attain our objective--so, it really was a loss......
...50,000 lives lost is a loss


----------



## JGalt

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure--that's right--it was unwinnable.....but we did not attain our objective--so, it really was a loss......
> ...50,000 lives lost is a loss
Click to expand...


Ok Cronkite.


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure--that's right--it was unwinnable.....but we did not attain our objective--so, it really was a loss......
> ...50,000 lives lost is a loss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Cronkite.
Click to expand...

Cronkite was the reason we lost the war!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH


----------



## JGalt

harmonica said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure--that's right--it was unwinnable.....but we did not attain our objective--so, it really was a loss......
> ...50,000 lives lost is a loss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Cronkite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cronkite was the reason we lost the war!!!!!!!!!
> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH
Click to expand...


Media personalities are there to to report the news, not to shape public opinion. You yourself know that it's x1000 worse today than it was back then...


----------



## lg325

The objective was to stop communism from taking over the entire area of south east Asia. So we did  achieve our objective. And I agree capitalism  is alive and well there but not democracy. Its not what  those that fought for the north side signed up for. The goverment will have another peoples revolt on there hands if there seen as selling out.  I belive any fight against communism is a noble cause. I am proud of my uncles service there.


----------



## Dick Foster

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


You can't win a war where the people are fighting for national freedom. Besides we were on the wrong side from the get go. Ho approach the US for help first as far back as Woodrow Wilson at the end of WWI. He even wrote his constitution based on our own. But no we had to side with the fucking frog imperialists. The only reason he went to the commies is because they were the only ones who would help him kick the fucking frogs out of their country.


----------



## harmonica

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure--that's right--it was unwinnable.....but we did not attain our objective--so, it really was a loss......
> ...50,000 lives lost is a loss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Cronkite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cronkite was the reason we lost the war!!!!!!!!!
> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Media personalities are there to to report the news, not to shape public opinion. You yourself know that it's x1000 worse today than it was back then...
Click to expand...

Russia lost in Afghanistan
the French lost in ''Vietnam''
the US lost in Vietnam
--and you bring up the media!!!!!????


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It cost millions of Vietnamese lives and 60,000 Americans to get what we could have gotten for nothing
Click to expand...

Hey....what do you expect from a Democrat president.
They start wars.....people who sell weapons get rich.


----------



## rightwinger

lg325 said:


> The objective was to stop communism from taking over the entire area of south east Asia. So we did  achieve our objective. And I agree capitalism  is alive and well there but not democracy. Its not what  those that fought for the north side signed up for. The goverment will have another peoples revolt on there hands if there seen as selling out.  I belive any fight against communism is a noble cause. I am proud of my uncles service there.


The people in Vietnam are better off today than they were under French Colonial Rule


----------



## rightwinger

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure--that's right--it was unwinnable.....but we did not attain our objective--so, it really was a loss......
> ...50,000 lives lost is a loss
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Cronkite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cronkite was the reason we lost the war!!!!!!!!!
> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Media personalities are there to to report the news, not to shape public opinion. You yourself know that it's x1000 worse today than it was back then...
Click to expand...

The media deceived us for seven years and parroted whatever propaganda they were being fed by the Pentagon.

They finally grew tired of the victory is right around the corner and the nobility of our motives and started to report the true picture.


----------



## Desperado

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA's involvement in Viet-Nam was far more than 7 years. Our first involvement was well over a 100 years before Viet-Nam war. Your statement about over 7 years of involvement simply shows your ignorance on this topic. You believed our involvement was so short you could not even think you should look it up. At the very least we were up to our necks as early as 1954 through 1973? At least 19 years. Then again Truman began our assistance as early as 1947, can I say 26 years of involvement?
Click to expand...

Why?  we had no business being there


----------



## Desperado

JGalt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
Click to expand...

Well we were pushing hueys off aircraft carriers and that is not something winners do.   Face it we lost that war


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

I think the Vietnam War was was mostly about enriching the US Military industrial Complex

But think about it.......with our overwhelming military resources.....if we couldn't win Vietnam......are we smart to be poking China?


----------



## JGalt

Desperado said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were winning.  The Cong was being wiped out.  Then liberal Walter Cronkite went to Viet Nam and lied.  He was the most trusted name in news and he lied.  We had won the Tet Offensive with a resounding and decisive victory.  Cronkite said it was a rout.  A humiliating defeat.  Ho Chi Minh realized he didn't have to win.  Hang on and the American left would do what his army could not.  Defeat our military.
> 
> 
> 
> ....hang on for how long?  the US couldn't stay there forever....
> ..it would be just like Afghanistan and Iraq - no win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hang on until the American left did what war did not do.  Win the war which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the gooks gooks did turn into little capitalists, as opposed to being another shithole like North Korea. I've seen lots of stuff in stores that was marked "Made in Vietnam."
> 
> Looks like all that bombing did the little bastards some good, just like it did Germany and Japan.
> 
> We showed them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at the cost of over 50,000 American lives--that really showed them---and we fked ourselves--YES--now we are competing  with them !!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could have cost far more than that, had they ended up like the NORKs and developed a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I messed up--it should read 50,000 WASTED American lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As well as 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.  But that never gets mentioned, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......?? your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that we did not "lose" the Vietnam War. I will never acquiesce to that fallacy..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we were pushing hueys off aircraft carriers and that is not something winners do.   Face it we lost that war
Click to expand...


The helicopters were pushed off the carrier to allow a South Vietnamese Major, his wife, and five children to land a Cessna, that was almost out of fuel. The Hueys had already served their purpose of evacuating American troops and Vietnamese, and it was the USS Midway commander's prerogative to do that...

Lawrence Chambers - Wikipedia

Equipment is expendable, allies who fought along side us aren't.


----------



## Moonglow

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Static warfare rarely succeeds for the established power...


----------



## Dayton3

BasicHumanUnit said:


> I think the Vietnam War was was mostly about enriching the US Military industrial Complex



Who was enriched by Vietnam War?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Dayton3 said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Vietnam War was was mostly about enriching the US Military industrial Complex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was enriched by Vietnam War?
Click to expand...


Well lessee........

Bomb makers (BIG TIME)
Bullet makers
Gun makers
Helicopter manufacturers........

You starting to get it yet?


----------



## Dayton3

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Vietnam War was was mostly about enriching the US Military industrial Complex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was enriched by Vietnam War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lessee........
> 
> Bomb makers (BIG TIME)
> Bullet makers
> Gun makers
> Helicopter manufacturers........
> 
> You starting to get it yet?
Click to expand...


I meant specific corporations.     

And in regards to "bomb makers" I'll remind you that a substantial amount of the U.S. ordnance expended in the Vietnam War was left over from World War Two.


----------



## Quasar44

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Thanks to LJ we lost 60,000 for nothing and they lost a few million


----------



## rightwinger

Quasar44 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to LJ we lost 60,000 for nothing and they lost a few million
Click to expand...

All to prevent Vietnam from falling to Communism. 
45 years later, we can see the dire predictions were unfounded. 
Wasted lives


----------



## mikegriffith1

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.


We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives. 
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with


----------



## mikegriffith1

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
Click to expand...


Oh, boy. . . . Which government would you have rather lived under, South Vietnam's or North Vietnam's? Yeah, uh-huh. For all of its faults, South Vietnam was far better than North Vietnam.

The Soviet Union pumped billions of dollars and tons of weapons into North Vietnam. You keep leaving out that fact.

Previous experience had proved that the South Vietnamese could repeal North Vietnamese assaults if they had enough air support. If we had kept our word and provided air support in '74, the results would have been the same and South Vietnam would not have fallen.

Again, for all of your bankrupt, immoral excuses for handing over tens of millions of South Vietnamese to communist tyranny, the fact remains that if the North had been convinced that we were going to stand by South Vietnam for as long as it took, South Vietnam would be a democratic nation today.



> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with



Phew! A "civil war"! Yeah, with the Soviet Union pumping massive aid and weaponry into North Vietnam. The Korean War was, technically speaking, a "civil war," but thank goodness traitors like you didn't run our government during that war, hey?

I wish we could get you into a room with some former South Vietnamese and see their reaction when you repeated your communist lies.

For the sake of others, since you seem to be brainwashed beyond recovery, here are some great articles that debunk the standard (liberal) myths about the Vietnam War:






						Justifying Betrayal of Vietnam Emerges as the Raison d'être Of Ken Burns' Film on the War
					

The only positive thing I can say about Ken Burns' documentary on the Vietnam War is this  if it is the best the left has, we may blessedly have heard the last of them. The arguments Mr. Burns presents are weak, biased, and insulting. The documentary




					www.nysun.com
				












						20 Myths About The Vietnam War That Have Now Been Debunked
					

The Vietnam War left behind a legacy of myths that many still believe today – even though the stories are often far from accurate.




					affluenttimes.com


----------



## Desperado

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.


If we went the route you suggest we would still have troops in South Vietnam today just like we have troops on South Korea.


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
Click to expand...


Odd to call  it a "civil war" when South Vietnam actually fell to a mammoth armored assault by the North Vietnamese Army that had more tanks than Nazi Germany used against France.


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd to call  it a "civil war" when South Vietnam actually fell to a mammoth armored assault by the North Vietnamese Army that had more tanks than Nazi Germany used against France.
Click to expand...

It was always a Civil War

They were supposed to have a vote to determine which Government would control. When it became obvious Ho Chi Minh would win easily, the US would not allow an election.

We turned a Civil War into a Cold War


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd to call  it a "civil war" when South Vietnam actually fell to a mammoth armored assault by the North Vietnamese Army that had more tanks than Nazi Germany used against France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was always a Civil War
> 
> They were supposed to have a vote to determine which Government would control. When it became obvious Ho Chi Minh would win easily, the US would not allow an election.
> 
> We turned a Civil War into a Cold War
Click to expand...


No nations (including ours) has a right to put communists into power.   No one.


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd to call  it a "civil war" when South Vietnam actually fell to a mammoth armored assault by the North Vietnamese Army that had more tanks than Nazi Germany used against France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was always a Civil War
> 
> They were supposed to have a vote to determine which Government would control. When it became obvious Ho Chi Minh would win easily, the US would not allow an election.
> 
> We turned a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No nations (including ours) has a right to put communists into power.   No one.
Click to expand...

Why were we putting anyone in power.

The Vietnamese people had enough Western interference. It killed over 2 million people.
The people should have decided


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
Click to expand...

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.


----------



## Camp

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
Click to expand...

Someone forgot to tell the VC in Quang Ngai they were dead. Also Quang Nam and particularly the ones who came alive in 1970 and killed a dozen Marines in 1970 at Firebase Ross.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Camp said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone forgot to tell the VC in Quang Ngai they were dead. Also Quang Nam and particularly the ones who came alive in 1970 and killed a dozen Marines in 1970 at Firebase Ross.
Click to expand...

Those were all North Vietnamese regulars smuggled into South Vietnam damn read a history or two RETARD.


----------



## Camp

RetiredGySgt said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone forgot to tell the VC in Quang Ngai they were dead. Also Quang Nam and particularly the ones who came alive in 1970 and killed a dozen Marines in 1970 at Firebase Ross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were all North Vietnamese regulars smuggled into South Vietnam damn read a history or two RETARD.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't, While VC was decimated in '68, elements remained and reconstituted. Proclaiming Marines and Soldiers did not fight VC after '68 is an insult to those that did. I gave enough info in my posts for conducting further research for proving my point if you weren't in country in the time period or know anyone who was.


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd to call  it a "civil war" when South Vietnam actually fell to a mammoth armored assault by the North Vietnamese Army that had more tanks than Nazi Germany used against France.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was always a Civil War
> 
> They were supposed to have a vote to determine which Government would control. When it became obvious Ho Chi Minh would win easily, the US would not allow an election.
> 
> We turned a Civil War into a Cold War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No nations (including ours) has a right to put communists into power.   No one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why were we putting anyone in power.
Click to expand...


It is the destiny of the U.S.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
Click to expand...

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us


----------



## Dick Foster

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
Click to expand...

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.


----------



## rightwinger

Dick Foster said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
Click to expand...

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
Click to expand...


We had good reasons to do that.


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had good reasons to do that.
Click to expand...

DeGaulle told us to?


----------



## Dick Foster

rightwinger said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned France almost caused WWII with the treaty of Versailles after we had to save their worthless asses in WWI then we had to go back and save the stupid bastards again in WWII after they pretty much stirred all that shit up.


----------



## Dick Foster

rightwinger said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had good reasons to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DeGaulle told us to?
Click to expand...

DeGaulle was a pumped up bag of hot air that never did anything but run his mouth. The only thing DeGaulle did was run to England and not surrender to the nazis.


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had good reasons to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DeGaulle told us to?
Click to expand...


1) The U.S. thought France was owed something due to their occupation by the Nazis.
2) The U.S. which had no interest at all in being the superpower champion of the west to oppose the Soviet Union wanted to pump up the British and French to take on that role in the post World War Two world.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.


..I recommend _A Bright Shining Lie_
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the *same* thing over and over--but expecting *different results*
--the French lost--as stated before--they said, thought and expected the *same* thing we did
--then we went in---we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the *same results *= INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give  up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have been 50,000 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--that was the US' fault









						A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rightwinger

Dayton3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had good reasons to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DeGaulle told us to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The U.S. thought France was owed something due to their occupation by the Nazis.
> 2) The U.S. which had no interest at all in being the superpower champion of the west to oppose the Soviet Union wanted to pump up the British and French to take on that role in the post World War Two world.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was occupied by Japan and fought for liberation.......and we gave them to France?


----------



## Flash

I love to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats that only know what they see from Hollywood opine about Vietnam.


----------



## AZrailwhale

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> ..I recommend _A Bright Shining Lie_
> 1. again, it's NOT a board game
> 2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
> -a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
> -b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military
> 
> ..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting *different results*
> --the French lost....
> --we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the *same results *= INSANITY -waste/etc
> ..the North is not going to give  up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military
> 
> ...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
> woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.


.......WOW!!!!!!   we get into a major war in Korea, and you want us to do the same thing with Vietnam????!!!!! only this one is going on for SEVEN years---and you want it to go on longer!!!!!!!!!??????????
insanity ...you people didn't learn from Korea


----------



## rightwinger

Flash said:


> I love to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats that only know what they see from Hollywood opine about Vietnam.



Tell us more how we could have won if we only........tried a little harder


----------



## Dick Foster

Dayton3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
> We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.
> 
> It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.
> 
> That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million
> 
> They were better off without us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.
> 
> It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had good reasons to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DeGaulle told us to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) The U.S. thought France was owed something due to their occupation by the Nazis.
> 2) The U.S. which had no interest at all in being the superpower champion of the west to oppose the Soviet Union wanted to pump up the British and French to take on that role in the post World War Two world.
Click to expand...

France brought nazi occupation upon themselves. Hitler even made them drag the same train car used to sign the german surrender to France in WWI out for the French surrender to the nazis in WWII. That was a clear enough signal. If France and Britain hadn't been so arrogant and stupid in WWI Hitler and WWII never would have happened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.


----------



## harmonica

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> ..I recommend _A Bright Shining Lie_
> 1. again, it's NOT a board game
> 2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
> -a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
> -b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military
> 
> ..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting *different results*
> --the French lost....
> --we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the *same results *= INSANITY -waste/etc
> ..the North is not going to give  up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military
> 
> ...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
> woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahahah
1. no we did not seal it off
2. I was talking about the South
3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!! 
4. WTF are you talking about??
refer to the maps


----------



## Turtlesoup

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .


Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be.   Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.


----------



## AZrailwhale

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> ..I recommend _A Bright Shining Lie_
> 1. again, it's NOT a board game
> 2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
> -a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
> -b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military
> 
> ..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting *different results*
> --the French lost....
> --we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the *same results *= INSANITY -waste/etc
> ..the North is not going to give  up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military
> 
> ...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
> woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahahahahahahah
> 1. no we did not seal it off
> 2. I was talking about the South
> 3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
> 4. WTF are you talking about??
> refer to the maps
> View attachment 404451
> View attachment 404450
Click to expand...

We didn't need to seal off the RVN.  All the supplies for the war in the RVN came from the PRVN.  Seal off the PRVN which was easy to do and the supplies stop at their source.  That's what forced the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  North Vietnam couldn't produce anything, not even  enough rice to feed itself.  Everything for the war came across either the rail links into the People's Republic of China or through Haiphong Harbor on freighters from the USSR.


----------



## harmonica

AZrailwhale said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> ..I recommend _A Bright Shining Lie_
> 1. again, it's NOT a board game
> 2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
> -a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
> -b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military
> 
> ..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting *different results*
> --the French lost....
> --we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the *same results *= INSANITY -waste/etc
> ..the North is not going to give  up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military
> 
> ...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
> woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahahahahahahah
> 1. no we did not seal it off
> 2. I was talking about the South
> 3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
> 4. WTF are you talking about??
> refer to the maps
> View attachment 404451
> View attachment 404450
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn't need to seal off the RVN.  All the supplies for the war in the RVN came from the PRVN.  Seal off the PRVN which was easy to do and the supplies stop at their source.  That's what forced the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  North Vietnam couldn't produce anything, not even  enough rice to feed itself.  Everything for the war came across either the rail links into the People's Republic of China or through Haiphong Harbor on freighters from the USSR.
Click to expand...

wrong ..they didn't seal off anything
1. I just posted this before:
'''''the objective of many attacks by US Air Force and US Navy aircraft which would fail to destroy the bridge until 1972,* even after hundreds* of attacks''''
etc etc





						Thanh Hóa Bridge - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



.

2. whatever you say we did, did not help at all--the North won
--doesn't matter if anything was signed--hahhahaha----


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.
> 
> If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.
> 
> I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> ..I recommend _A Bright Shining Lie_
> 1. again, it's NOT a board game
> 2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
> -a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
> -b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military
> 
> ..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting *different results*
> --the French lost....
> --we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the *same results *= INSANITY -waste/etc
> ..the North is not going to give  up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military
> 
> ...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
> woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahahahahahahah
> 1. no we did not seal it off
> 2. I was talking about the South
> 3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
> 4. WTF are you talking about??
> refer to the maps
> View attachment 404451
> View attachment 404450
Click to expand...


Without us controlling Cambodia and Laos,   South Vietnam was indefensible.   You can see that with any map.   Including the ones you provided.


----------



## Dayton3

Turtlesoup said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be.   Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.
Click to expand...


You have actual evidence of this?


----------



## mikegriffith1

AZrailwhale said:


> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.



Pretty much a bullseye. NV signed the peace treaty because we were bombing them into eternity, mining their harbors, cutting off their main supply routes, etc., etc. But NV knew they could count on American Democrats and the American news media to smear South Vietnam and to tear down the war effort, and the Democrats and the media came through for the communists.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.



Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much a bullseye. NV signed the peace treaty because we were bombing them into eternity, mining their harbors, cutting off their main supply routes, etc., etc. But NV knew they could count on American Democrats and the American news media to smear South Vietnam and to tear down the war effort, and the Democrats and the media came through for the communists.
Click to expand...


NV had been fighting and dying for decades
They were not about to give up

Nixon was begging to get out


----------



## Turtlesoup

Dayton3 said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be.   Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have actual evidence of this?
Click to expand...

Dont you know how the Kennedy clan made their money besides bootlegging and other criminal activity?  They were also heavily into weapons investment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
Click to expand...

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.


----------



## Dayton3

Turtlesoup said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be.   Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have actual evidence of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont you know how the Kennedy clan made their money besides bootlegging and other criminal activity?  They were also heavily into weapons investment.
Click to expand...


Interesting.
Citation requested.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support.  That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords.  Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much a bullseye. NV signed the peace treaty because we were bombing them into eternity, mining their harbors, cutting off their main supply routes, etc., etc. But NV knew they could count on American Democrats and the American news media to smear South Vietnam and to tear down the war effort, and the Democrats and the media came through for the communists.
Click to expand...

..so sealing it off [ hahahahhahahaha which they didn't ] won the war for the US???!!!   [ FYI, the US did not win ]


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
Click to expand...

..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting 
--you want to keep the war going for decades!!!! 
--like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
> --you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
> --like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity
Click to expand...


Lots of wars last for decades.    Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?


----------



## Uncensored2008

harmonica said:


> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .




We could have won the Vietnam war in a matter of months. But it would have to have been a war, not a "police action."  Had we fought it the way we fought in Europe we would have quickly crushed the Communists. But we didn't, we stayed behind imaginary lines and played games.


----------



## Desperado

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
Click to expand...

The SlotMachine Theory of War.... Just a little more time and a little more money and  we would have WON,  Seems to be the battle cry of the Vietnam era generals


----------



## Desperado

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
Click to expand...

Might want to rethink that year......  *The* *last* combat *troops* *of* *the* United States were *pulled* *out* *of* South *Vietnam* on 29 March 1973. 8,500 American civilians, embassy guards, and defense office soldiers remained in Saigon. The largest helicopter evacuation in history occurred on 29 April 1975


----------



## mikegriffith1

The one and only time when NV made the mistake of engaging us in a large-scale, set-piece battle, i.e., the Tet Offensive, we slaughtered them on an enormous scale. The Tet Offensive was a *military* disaster for NV. Ho Chi Minh was so upset with the gigantic losses and the failure to hold a single city that he fired General Giap, the planner and leader of the offensive. It took NV at least 2 years to recover from the devastation that we imposed on them. 

But, our news media and anti-war Democrats (I know: that's redundant) gave NV a great PR victory, and damaged public support for the war, by painting the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and as an indication that we had no hope of victory.


----------



## elektra

Desperado said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA's involvement in Viet-Nam was far more than 7 years. Our first involvement was well over a 100 years before Viet-Nam war. Your statement about over 7 years of involvement simply shows your ignorance on this topic. You believed our involvement was so short you could not even think you should look it up. At the very least we were up to our necks as early as 1954 through 1973? At least 19 years. Then again Truman began our assistance as early as 1947, can I say 26 years of involvement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?  we had no business being there
Click to expand...

because you say so? we have business wherever communism rears it's ugly head.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> 100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
> it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time


I stated our first involvement with Viet-Nam was a 100 ago. That is an accurate statement. A fact.


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> 100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
> it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time


1947, not 1955. You should read a book and quit using google as your brain.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
> it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time
> 
> 
> 
> I stated our first involvement with Viet-Nam was a 100 ago. That is an accurate statement. A fact.
Click to expand...

hahahahhahahahahha
 it has no relevance at all to the subject


----------



## harmonica

Uncensored2008 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have won the Vietnam war in a matter of months. But it would have to have been a war, not a "police action."  Had we fought it the way we fought in Europe we would have quickly crushed the Communists. But we didn't, we stayed behind imaginary lines and played games.
Click to expand...

unbelievable/insane


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
> --you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
> --like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of wars last for decades.    Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?
Click to expand...

lots of wars what??
....also,  if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars??  if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
> --you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
> --like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of wars last for decades.    Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lots of wars what??
> ....also,  if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars??  if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
> ..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam
Click to expand...


You support the U.S. going to war with Iran?    Great!   Something we can agree on.    We're probably more alike than you think.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
> --you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
> --like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of wars last for decades.    Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lots of wars what??
> ....also,  if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars??  if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
> ..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the U.S. going to war with Iran?    Great!   Something we can agree on.    We're probably more alike than you think.
Click to expand...

..... I meant the Hostage Crisis --we had every right to go to war and/or blast some shit.....I was just thinking the other day about a thread on what options we had during the Hostage Crisis ...I'll have to post that sometime


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
> --you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
> --like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of wars last for decades.    Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lots of wars what??
> ....also,  if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars??  if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
> ..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the U.S. going to war with Iran?    Great!   Something we can agree on.    We're probably more alike than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..... I meant the Hostage Crisis --we had every right to go to war and/or blast some shit.....I was just thinking the other day about a thread on what options we had during the Hostage Crisis ...I'll have to post that sometime
Click to expand...


The rescue mission was a disaster.   But it could've been an even bigger disaster.    The U.S. military had privately estimated that the BEST case scenario for the hostage rescue mission was for HALF the hostages to be killed and from 300-500 Iranians to be killed.    They did not come clean with President Carter about these estimates because they knew he would chicken out.   And coming barely half a decade after the Vietnam War,  the  U.S. military wanted to put a "win" in the column.   

A big part of the problem was Carter wanted the rescue force to minimize Iranian casualties at all costs.   Including using nonlethal weapons whenever possible.   One of the top officers who ended up carrying smoke grenades later said "He expected us to fight our way out of a hostile capital city of 5 million people with smoke grenades!!".

If things went to hell, the officer planned to fire one and only one smoke grenade...and that would be the signal for AC-130 gunships to start making attacks into the heart of Tehran.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they  switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
> --you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
> --like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of wars last for decades.    Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lots of wars what??
> ....also,  if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars??  if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
> ..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the U.S. going to war with Iran?    Great!   Something we can agree on.    We're probably more alike than you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..... I meant the Hostage Crisis --we had every right to go to war and/or blast some shit.....I was just thinking the other day about a thread on what options we had during the Hostage Crisis ...I'll have to post that sometime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rescue mission was a disaster.   But it could've been an even bigger disaster.    The U.S. military had privately estimated that the BEST case scenario for the hostage rescue mission was for HALF the hostages to be killed and from 300-500 Iranians to be killed.    They did not come clean with President Carter about these estimates because they knew he would chicken out.   And coming barely half a decade after the Vietnam War,  the  U.S. military wanted to put a "win" in the column.
> 
> A big part of the problem was Carter wanted the rescue force to minimize Iranian casualties at all costs.   Including using nonlethal weapons whenever possible.   One of the top officers who ended up carrying smoke grenades later said "He expected us to fight our way out of a hostile capital city of 5 million people with smoke grenades!!".
> 
> If things went to hell, the officer planned to fire one and only one smoke grenade...and that would be the signal for AC-130 gunships to start making attacks into the heart of Tehran.
Click to expand...

o, I guess I did make one--but I did not go into the many other options/etc




__





						Iran Hostage Crisis 1979-bomb or not
					

ZERO people ---- no hostages, no soldiers, no civilians --- died in the Iran hostage situation.  Fact.  Again that number is: "0".Stick to topics you know something about. Here is a sample of Carter's failure and incompetance in handling the hostage situation - 8 dead:  Operation Eagle Claw -...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## harmonica

Uncensored2008 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have won the Vietnam war in a matter of months. But it would have to have been a war, not a "police action."  Had we fought it the way we fought in Europe we would have quickly crushed the Communists. But we didn't, we stayed behind imaginary lines and played games.
Click to expand...

I've asked for scenarios before
please give me a '''few months'' win scenario


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> hahahahhahahahahha
> it has no relevance at all to the subject


Of course that is what the ignorant says.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahhahahahahha
> it has no relevance at all to the subject
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is what the ignorant says.
Click to expand...

......if you could've proved it, you would have--but you didn't..you just make insults = you are babbling crap--as usual
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahhahahahahha
> it has no relevance at all to the subject
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is what the ignorant says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......if you could've proved it, you would have--but you didn't..you just make insults = you are babbling crap--as usual
> HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
Click to expand...

you are a liar, I did not post insults, unless calling you ignorant after you proved it is an insult....

oh, and stating using google as your brain must of insulted you but in my defense I thought that would go over your head.


----------



## harmonica

elektra said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahhahahahahha
> it has no relevance at all to the subject
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that is what the ignorant says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......if you could've proved it, you would have--but you didn't..you just make insults = you are babbling crap--as usual
> HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are a liar, I did not post insults, unless calling you ignorant after you proved it is an insult....
> 
> oh, and stating using google as your brain must of insulted you but in my defense I thought that would go over your head.
Click to expand...

......ANOTHER post by you that just babbles with no relevance to the subject!!!!


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> The one and only time when NV made the mistake of engaging us in a large-scale, set-piece battle, i.e., the Tet Offensive, we slaughtered them on an enormous scale. The Tet Offensive was a *military* disaster for NV. Ho Chi Minh was so upset with the gigantic losses and the failure to hold a single city that he fired General Giap, the planner and leader of the offensive. It took NV at least 2 years to recover from the devastation that we imposed on them.
> 
> But, our news media and anti-war Democrats (I know: that's redundant) gave NV a great PR victory, and damaged public support for the war, by painting the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and as an indication that we had no hope of victory.



The NV did not care.....It was their country
They were in for the long haul, we were in it for a quick victory and go home.

After Tet, the people at home began to ask
Why are we in Vietnam?

Nobody could give an acceptable answer


----------



## elektra

harmonica said:


> ......ANOTHER post by you that just babbles with no relevance to the subject!!!!


Of course, your comments are what you describe mine to be so of course, as you have set the tone, comments no longer reflect tbe topic. You must be a special kind of stupid to miss that.


----------



## mikegriffith1

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one and only time when NV made the mistake of engaging us in a large-scale, set-piece battle, i.e., the Tet Offensive, we slaughtered them on an enormous scale. The Tet Offensive was a *military* disaster for NV. Ho Chi Minh was so upset with the gigantic losses and the failure to hold a single city that he fired General Giap, the planner and leader of the offensive. It took NV at least 2 years to recover from the devastation that we imposed on them.
> 
> But, our news media and anti-war Democrats (I know: that's redundant) gave NV a great PR victory, and damaged public support for the war, by painting the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and as an indication that we had no hope of victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NV did not care.....It was their country
> They were in for the long haul, we were in it for a quick victory and go home.
> 
> After Tet, the people at home began to ask
> Why are we in Vietnam?
> 
> Nobody could give an acceptable answer
Click to expand...


First of all, Vietnam was not NV's country--it was not "their country." The North and the South had been separated for centuries, a fact that liberals always ignore.

Yes, Americans began to ask "why are we in Vietnam" after Tet because our liberal news media gave a very warped, dishonest portrayal of it. Instead of reporting the fact that Tet was a crushing military defeat for the North, our media painted Tet as being a NV victory and as proving that the war effort was misguided and ineffective.

Again, we won the war and forced NV to sign the 1973 peace treaty. But, when the North violated the treaty and invaded the South in 1974, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised SV.

One of these days you really should figure out that the hokey syrup you were fed in school textbooks is usually not very reliable and is often brazenly wrong.


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> The one and only time when NV made the mistake of engaging us in a large-scale, set-piece battle, i.e., the Tet Offensive, we slaughtered them on an enormous scale. The Tet Offensive was a *military* disaster for NV. Ho Chi Minh was so upset with the gigantic losses and the failure to hold a single city that he fired General Giap, the planner and leader of the offensive. It took NV at least 2 years to recover from the devastation that we imposed on them.
> 
> But, our news media and anti-war Democrats (I know: that's redundant) gave NV a great PR victory, and damaged public support for the war, by painting the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and as an indication that we had no hope of victory.



Correction: Ho Chi Minh fired General Giap after his disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive, which resulted in even bigger losses than the Tet Offensive. 

Also, NV launched two more attacks in 1968 after the Tet Offensive, but they were on a smaller scale and were brutally repulsed.


----------



## Mac-7

JGalt said:


> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.


The expansion of marxism ended with the end of the  Vietnam War

we lost S Vietnam but saved Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines


----------



## rightwinger

Mac-7 said:


> The expansion of marxism ended with the end of the Vietnam War
> 
> we lost S Vietnam but saved Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines



What you are admitting is that the threatened Domino Theory never happened once Vietnam went communist


----------



## Dayton3

rightwinger said:


> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The expansion of marxism ended with the end of the Vietnam War
> 
> we lost S Vietnam but saved Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are admitting is that the threatened Domino Theory never happened once Vietnam went communist
Click to expand...


Well of course.    The communists in Vietnam were utterly exhausted at the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.    To the point that the Chinese actually doubted that they had the wherewithal to conquer South Vietnam which was why the Chinese suggested to North Vietnam that they wait a few more years before moving against South Vietnam in force. 

By the way,   IIRC it was an Indonesian official who said in the 1980s that Southeast Asia would've been in far worse shape if the U.S. had pulled out in 1965 as opposed to 1973.  

And the Domino Theory did apply in a limited fashion because after the communists took over North Vietnam they eventually took over South Vietnam,  Laos, and Cambodia.


----------



## Mac-7

rightwinger said:


> What you are admitting is that the threatened Domino Theory never happened once Vietnam went communist


Because of the Vietnam War

the communist sponsors of military aggression in Moscow and Beijing were exhausted and bankrupt by the war


----------



## Mac-7

Dayton3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac-7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The expansion of marxism ended with the end of the Vietnam War
> 
> we lost S Vietnam but saved Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are admitting is that the threatened Domino Theory never happened once Vietnam went communist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course.    The communists in Vietnam were utterly exhausted at the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.    To the point that the Chinese actually doubted that they had the wherewithal to conquer South Vietnam which was why the Chinese suggested to North Vietnam that they wait a few more years before moving against South Vietnam in force.
> 
> By the way,   IIRC it was an Indonesian official who said in the 1980s that Southeast Asia would've been in far worse shape if the U.S. had pulled out in 1965 as opposed to 1973.
> 
> And the Domino Theory did apply in a limited fashion because after the communists took over North Vietnam they eventually took over South Vietnam,  Laos, and Cambodia.
Click to expand...

*To the point that the Chinese actually doubted that they had the wherewithal to conquer South Vietnam which was why the Chinese suggested to North Vietnam that they wait a few more years before moving against South Vietnam in force.*

The chicoms underestimated the backstabbing and double-dealing democrats in congress who were determined to lose the war

May they rot in hell


----------



## rightwinger

Mac-7 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are admitting is that the threatened Domino Theory never happened once Vietnam went communist
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the Vietnam War
> 
> the communist sponsors of military aggression in Moscow and Beijing were exhausted and bankrupt by the war
Click to expand...

Didn’t stop them in Vietnam. They were willing to fight to the last man 

There was no insurgency in other countries fighting for Communism.

The Domino Theory was an empty threat. Along with the threatened perils of a Communist Vietnam.

45 years of history has shown those threats were not a justification for killing millions


----------



## mikegriffith1

For those who might be interested, I have created a website on the Vietnam War:

The Truth About the Vietnam War: The Democrats Betrayed South Vietnam








						vietnam_war_truth
					

In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to




					sites.google.com
				




The site includes links to numerous long and short documentaries on the war, links to articles on the war, and links to recommended books on the war.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

I love the way Republicans (not all of them, only the retards) argue that it was evil Demonrats who _started_ the Vietnam War and evil Demonrats who ... “Betrayed Vietnam.”

Makes one wonder what those godly Republicans were doing all those years?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

mikegriffith1 said:


> “Ho Chi Minh fired General Giap after his disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive ...”


That would have been hard for even Ho Chi Minh to manage considering that ... *HE DIED ON SEPT. 2, 1969!*

_This is what happens when hysterical Republican hacks try to rewrite history. They not only weave an ideologically biased view that will only result in future “unwinnable” and UNJUST wars ... they don’t even get their FACTS straight!_


----------



## Dayton3

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I love the way Republicans (not all of them, only the retards) argue that it was evil Demonrats who _started_ the Vietnam War and evil Demonrats who ... “Betrayed Vietnam.”
> 
> Makes one wonder what those godly Republicans were doing all those years?



Losing elections mainly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Ho Chi Minh fired General Giap after his disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive ...”
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been hard for even Ho Chi Minh to manage considering that ... *HE DIED ON SEPT. 2, 1969!*
> 
> _This is what happens when hysterical Republican hacks try to rewrite history. They not only weave an ideologically biased view that will only result in future “unwinnable” and UNJUST wars ... they don’t even get their FACTS straight!_
Click to expand...

Provide a link to your claim he was fired in 1968.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Ho Chi Minh fired General Giap after his disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive ...”
> 
> 
> 
> That would have been hard for even Ho Chi Minh to manage considering that ... *HE DIED ON SEPT. 2, 1969!*
> 
> _This is what happens when hysterical Republican hacks try to rewrite history. They not only weave an ideologically biased view that will only result in future “unwinnable” and UNJUST wars ... they don’t even get their FACTS straight!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide a link to your claim he was fired in 1968.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, RetiredGySgt , but I said *nothing* about anybody being fired in 1968. Perhaps you were addressing somebody else?

In 1968 I was a young man being tear-gassed, arrested and beaten by cops for protesting the Vietnam War.   Not “fired” though.  

If you reread what I wrote you will see I simply pointed out that Ho Chi Minh, long-time leader of the Vietnamese National Liberation Movement, DIED in 1969.

Therefore mikegriffith1 is wrong. Ho could not have fired General Giap in 1972.

Even Eisenhower admitted Ho would have won election as President of ALL Vietnam had elections been held as scheduled after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu. Some rarely acknowledged info regarding Ho Chi Minh’s earlier history can be found here: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh


----------



## Dick Foster

Turtlesoup said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
> ..first--the French lost--*and *after we gave them MILLIONS$ *and* with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
> ......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ]  = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
> ...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
> .......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be.   Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.
Click to expand...

Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dick Foster said:


> Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.


This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You supported the claim he was fired in 1968 though by claiming he was not fired in 1972. So Ho Chi Mein was dead there was still a leader and he fire him in 72.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

RetiredGySgt said:


> You supported the claim he was fired in 1968 though by claiming he was not fired in 1972. So Ho Chi Mein was dead there was still a leader and he fire him in 72.


You are clearly having trouble understanding the English language. I only said he was not fired _*by Ho Chi Minh after Ho Chi Minh was already dead. *_My larger point was merely that mikegriffith1 made an elementary mistake that anybody with any real knowledge about Vietnamese history could never have made.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You supported the claim he was fired in 1968 though by claiming he was not fired in 1972. So Ho Chi Mein was dead there was still a leader and he fire him in 72.
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly having trouble understanding the English language. I only said he was not fired _*by Ho Chi Minh after Ho Chi Minh was already dead. *_My larger point was merely that mikegriffith1 made an elementary mistake that anybody with any real knowledge about Vietnamese history could never have made.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that he was fired in 72. Which was the entire point. Who fired him is minor.


----------



## Dayton3

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
Click to expand...


the "military industrial complex" is a myth.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dayton3 said:


> the "military industrial complex" is a myth.


Tell that to President Eisenhower, who warned specifically of its growing power in his 1961 retirement speech:


Today that power is far greater and more corrupting than Eisenhower could ever have dreamed.


----------



## Dayton3

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the "military industrial complex" is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to President Eisenhower, who warned specifically of its growing power in his 1961 retirement speech:
> 
> Today that power is far greater and more corrupting than Eisenhower could ever have dreamed.
Click to expand...


You fixate on only one part of Eisenhower's speech.    IIRC it was the same speech where Eisenhower warned that in a future war the United States would not have time to mobilize a major military force and such a conflict would be "come as you are".    Given that Eisenhower stated that the U.S. had to maintain a large and strong conventional military even in peacetime.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

As for the alleged “firing” of General Giap (in _either_ 1968 or 1972) because of his supposedly pushing the Tet Offensive or later adventures, this again is both wrong and the product of Western ignorance and imagination. As is now generally conceded by most scholars, _both_ General Giap _and_ Ho Chi Minh thought the Tet Offensive was unwise and adventurous, but _neither_ then were in a position to prevent it being carried out:

“The 1968 Tết Offensive was the brainchild of Communist Party Secretary Lêê Duẩn and General Văn Tiến Dũũng. The Hàà Nội government wanted to exploit the 1968 US presidential elections by opening negotiations with the United States. When General Võõ Nguyêên Giááp failed to devise a workable plan to win a military victory to give the communists leverage in the planned negotiations, Lêê Duẩn and Văn Tiến Dũũng pushed the risky plan for a nationwide ‘general offensive’ through a reluctant Politburo in spite of opposition from General Võõ Nguyêên Giááp and Hồ Chíí Minh.”

General Võõ Nguyêên Giááp and the Mysterious Evolution of the Plan for the 1968 Tết Offensive


----------



## LA RAM FAN

gipper said:


> They never intended to win. They just wanted to get rich.


Yep yep and yep.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the "military industrial complex" is a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to President Eisenhower, who warned specifically of its growing power in his 1961 retirement speech:
> 
> 
> Today that power is far greater and more corrupting than Eisenhower could ever have dreamed.
Click to expand...

You took him to school.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
Click to expand...


You nailed it,could not have said it any better myself.the blood of 58,000 Americans is on the hands of both johnson and Nixon,it wasn’t the NVA ot the Vietcong that murdered them,it was those two corporate whores and for all the idiot trolls out there like that retarded Sargent for one,enough of the crap thst Nixon ended the war,had he been able to have it his way the war would have gone on at least till 1976 had he not been impeached and served an entire second term had  he remained in office.It was the American people that ended the fucking war.Warmonger Nixon expanded the war with his illegal Cambodia bombing campaign.

Had Dick Nixon Really had wanted the war to end,he could have ended it in 69 instead of delaying it another four years,plus the fact he delayed it sabotaging LBJ,s Paris peace talks.  So enough of this tiresome bs propaganda I have heard over the years from lying trolls like him that he ended the war with their revisionist crap.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.



Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.

The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach. 

As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.
> 
> The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.
> 
> As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
Click to expand...

Agreed. 

As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.

The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US.  They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.
> 
> The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.
> 
> As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.
> 
> The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US.  They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.
Click to expand...


Complete and utter BS.    The military industrial complex in the United States is a myth.   Most people seize on a single line of that Eisenhower speech and ignore the rest which was actually advocating  a large peacetime military for the  U.S. 

Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald.   No other credible evidence points in any other direction.

Case closed.


----------



## Mr Natural

A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse.

How is that not an unwinnable scenario?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Mr Clean said:


> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?



What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded. 

But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded. 









						vietnam_war_truth
					

In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to




					sites.google.com


----------



## Dayton3

mikegriffith1 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
Click to expand...


People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.


----------



## gipper

Dayton3 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.
> 
> The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.
> 
> As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.
> 
> The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US.  They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BS.    The military industrial complex in the United States is a myth.   Most people seize on a single line of that Eisenhower speech and ignore the rest which was actually advocating  a large peacetime military for the  U.S.
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald.   No other credible evidence points in any other direction.
> 
> Case closed.
Click to expand...

Ike told you about the dangers of the MIC way back in 1960. Was he lying?


----------



## Dayton3

gipper said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.
> 
> The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.
> 
> As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.
> 
> The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US.  They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BS.    The military industrial complex in the United States is a myth.   Most people seize on a single line of that Eisenhower speech and ignore the rest which was actually advocating  a large peacetime military for the  U.S.
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald.   No other credible evidence points in any other direction.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ike told you about the dangers of the MIC way back in 1960. Was he lying?
Click to expand...


You didn't read the entire speech did you?


----------



## gipper

Dayton3 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.
> 
> The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.
> 
> As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.
> 
> The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US.  They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and utter BS.    The military industrial complex in the United States is a myth.   Most people seize on a single line of that Eisenhower speech and ignore the rest which was actually advocating  a large peacetime military for the  U.S.
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald.   No other credible evidence points in any other direction.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ike told you about the dangers of the MIC way back in 1960. Was he lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the entire speech did you?
Click to expand...

You didn’t comprehend the speech did you?


----------



## mikegriffith1

Dayton3 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
Click to expand...


That is an excellent point. Phil Jennings makes the same point in his book. We had a golden opportunity to decimate the NV army for years to come. But, NV counted on American Democrats to keep President Ford from providing air support to South Vietnam, and the Democrats came through for the Communists, and in so doing they sentenced hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese to execution and brutal "reeducation" camps.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I should mention that we know from memoirs of North Vietnamese leaders that NV viewed anti-war Democrats and the American news media as two of their most vital allies. We also know from those memoirs and from NV official documents that they had no intention of honoring the ceasefire, that they used the bombing halts to move troops and supplies into position for future attacks, and that they launched their final invasion on the assumption that Congressional Democrats would prevent American intervention.


----------



## whitehall

Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
Click to expand...

hahahhahahahahahha
jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
''easily annihilated''  ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY


----------



## harmonica

whitehall said:


> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.


..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
Click to expand...

And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
Click to expand...

correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, Nort Vietnam invaded with 25 divisions and no insurgency took over South Vietnam while the democrats REFUSED to honor a treaty?


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
Click to expand...

many VC attacks AFTER the US left








						23 South Vietnamese Children Killed as Shell Hits Schoolyard (Published 1974)
					






					www.nytimes.com
				











						Vietcong Say They Struck Bien Hoa Base in Reprisal (Published 1973)
					

Vietcong statement, Nov 6, says that it had attacked Bien Hoa airbase, Nov 6, with rockets to retaliate for recent air strikes originating at the base against Communist positions; Saigon Govt says attack is 'clear evidence that a new gen offensive is on'; Saigon mil command, however, says...




					www.nytimes.com
				











						Thieu's Palace Is Attacked By One of Saigon's Planes (Published 1975)
					

renegade S Vietnamese pilot in F-5 attacks Doc Lap Palace in Saigon with bombs and machine-gun fire on Apr 8 in evident effort to kill Pres Nguyen Van Thieu; kills 2 palace workers and wounds 3; Thieu later announces he is safe and that damage to palace was minimal; says attack was by single...




					www.nytimes.com
				



etc etc


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
Click to expand...

OMG!!!
......the mission was to keep the North from over running/taking over the South--to keep the South free from communism..... you are just babbling by inserting ''insurgency'' in there...you tried that before --and it is wrong
..the communist took over the South --plain and simple


----------



## RetiredGySgt

By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.


----------



## whitehall

harmonica said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
Click to expand...

"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.


----------



## Dayton3

whitehall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
Click to expand...


Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War.    They  later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahha
> jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
> they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
> ''easily annihilated''  ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
Click to expand...


You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.


----------



## harmonica

Dayton3 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahha
> jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
> they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
> ''easily annihilated''  ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.
Click to expand...

even smart bombs would not do it......the NVA had been dealing with superior US airpower for YEARS---and you think it's going to stop them???!!!!


----------



## harmonica

whitehall said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
Click to expand...

...like I said you people think in movie/TV/unrealistic terms
*'''''United Nations Security Council Resolution 82* was a measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950. The resolution demanded North Korea immediately end its invasion of South Korea,''''
mission accomplished = won 








						Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



..I'll say it again, most wars are not like WW2...wars are politically complicated 
..we did not send troops there to take over North Korea--that wasn't the goal


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahha
> jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
> they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
> ''easily annihilated''  ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even smart bombs would not do it......the NVA had been dealing with superior US airpower for YEARS---and you think it's going to stop them???!!!!
Click to expand...

In 1972 the North launched an Invasion of the South and with NO US TROOPS in combat roles the South with US air Power STOPPED THEM.


----------



## harmonica

RetiredGySgt said:


> By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.


......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.
> 
> 
> 
> ......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
> AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!
Click to expand...

Look you fucking RETARD in 1972 the North also invaded the South and LOST with NO US troops in combat roles. Only US air Power and the South Vietnamese Troops. We had a BINDING TREATY with South Vietnam that your buddies the democrats refused to honor. Further in 74 the same traitorous democrats cut the supply line to the South Vietnamese Army.


----------



## Dayton3

harmonica said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.
> 
> But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vietnam_war_truth
> 
> 
> In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was free and independent. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sites.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power.   Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least.   If the U.S. had done so it would've been years,  possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahhahahahahahha
> jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
> they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
> ''easily annihilated''  ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even smart bombs would not do it......the NVA had been dealing with superior US airpower for YEARS
Click to expand...


Not successfully.


----------



## whitehall

Dayton3 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War.    They  later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.
Click to expand...

WW2 casualties (justifiably) included every person in uniform whether they died by accident or in training or by disease. It's insulting to ignore the Sailors who were killed in accidents on Aircraft Carriers or lost at sea during the conflict or the Marines and Soldiers who died in training or by accident because (mostly) democrats want to keep the numbers down to protect the Truman legacy.


----------



## Dayton3

whitehall said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War.    They  later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WW2 casualties (justifiably) included every person in uniform whether they died by accident or in training or by disease. It's insulting to ignore the Sailors who were killed in accidents on Aircraft Carriers or lost at sea during the conflict or the Marines and Soldiers who died in training or by accident because (mostly) democrats want to keep the numbers down to protect the Truman legacy.
Click to expand...


That's because World War Two was a world war, and the entire U.S. military was the size it was and training the way it was due to that war.

But its foolish to suggest that the thousands of American servicemen who died in Western Europe during the time of the Korean War are "casualties of the Korean War".

Mainly the reason the totals were "pumped up" for the Korean War was to make it nearly as deadly as the Vietnam War.    So the people who fought in the Korean War could say "We lost nearly as many as were killed in the Vietnam War and in only three years". 

My dad was a Korean War veteran by the way.


----------



## whitehall

Dayton3 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
> 
> 
> 
> ..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
> we DID win in Korea
> ...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
> ..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War.    They  later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WW2 casualties (justifiably) included every person in uniform whether they died by accident or in training or by disease. It's insulting to ignore the Sailors who were killed in accidents on Aircraft Carriers or lost at sea during the conflict or the Marines and Soldiers who died in training or by accident because (mostly) democrats want to keep the numbers down to protect the Truman legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because World War Two was a world war, and the entire U.S. military was the size it was and training the way it was due to that war.
> 
> But its foolish to suggest that the thousands of American servicemen who died in Western Europe during the time of the Korean War are "casualties of the Korean War".
> 
> Mainly the reason the totals were "pumped up" for the Korean War was to make it nearly as deadly as the Vietnam War.    So the people who fought in the Korean War could say "We lost nearly as many as were killed in the Vietnam War and in only three years".
> 
> My dad was a Korean War veteran by the way.
Click to expand...

The "totals" weren't "pumped up". They were what they were before LBJ's war. If American G.I.'s were dying by the thousands in Western Europe during the Korean War surely the media would have covered it but they didn't. Atomic bomb experiments using American G.I.'s became popular in the early 50's but the media wasn't covering that either.


----------



## Dayton3

whitehall said:


> If American G.I.'s were dying by the thousands in Western Europe during the Korean War surely the media would have covered it



Why?    During the Cold War,  typically 3-5,000  American servicemen died in the peacetime military every year.    Look it up if you doubt me.


----------



## whitehall

Dayton3 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If American G.I.'s were dying by the thousands in Western Europe during the Korean War surely the media would have covered it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?    During the Cold War,  typically 3-5,000  American servicemen died in the peacetime military every year.    Look it up if you doubt me.
Click to expand...

Do the math. The original estimate of Korean War casualties was around 50,000 downgraded to 35,000. What happened to those 15,000 Americans in three years who were taken off the rolls? Surely 15,000 American deaths in the Military in three years should have been accounted for.


----------



## mikegriffith1

harmonica said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.
> 
> 
> 
> ......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
> AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!
Click to expand...


Why do you keep denying documented historical fact? Leaving aside all the other documentation, North Vietnamese memoirs and official documents tell us (1) that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army were both decimated after General Giap's disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive, (2) that Nixon's Linebacker II bombing campaign and mining of Haiphong Harbor in 1972 brought North Vietnam to her knees and forced her to sign the ceasefire agreement in January 1973, and (3) that North Vietnam's leaders decided to violate the ceasefire and invade because they believed that the American Democrats would prevent the president from intervening to save South Vietnam, which is exactly what happened.

It is unbelievable that the treasonous Democrats in Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment five months after the ceasefire was signed, giving North Vietnam a bright green light to invade. The Case-Church Amendment prohibited the president from intervening in Vietnam without first getting Congressional approval, which of course that treasonous Congress would never grant, and North Vietnam knew this.


----------



## cnm

JGalt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.
> 
> I mean, compared to North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are a source of cheap labor?  How did we win anything?
> 
> I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It cost millions of Vietnamese lives and 60,000 Americans to get what we could have gotten for nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's far more complex than that.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.


----------



## harmonica

mikegriffith1 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.
> 
> 
> 
> ......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
> AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep denying documented historical fact? Leaving aside all the other documentation, North Vietnamese memoirs and official documents tell us (1) that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army were both decimated after General Giap's disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive, (2) that Nixon's Linebacker II bombing campaign and mining of Haiphong Harbor in 1972 brought North Vietnam to her knees and forced her to sign the ceasefire agreement in January 1973, and (3) that North Vietnam's leaders decided to violate the ceasefire and invade because they believed that the American Democrats would prevent the president from intervening to save South Vietnam, which is exactly what happened.
> 
> It is unbelievable that the treasonous Democrats in Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment five months after the ceasefire was signed, giving North Vietnam a bright green light to invade. The Case-Church Amendment prohibited the president from intervening in Vietnam without first getting Congressional approval, which of course that treasonous Congress would never grant, and North Vietnam knew this.
Click to expand...

Why do *you* keep denying documented historical fact? 
....so we should continue the war for eternity???  because that's what you are saying
..so the Democrats made the French lose also?
JFK/etc said it--the US could not win the war for the South--plain and simple


----------

