VietNam..April 30th....How It Ended.

[9thIDdoc]

The United States gave far more support to the South Vietnamese government than the amount of support given to North Vietnam by the Soviets and the Communist Chinese.

Untrue. Very very untrue.

You seem to have served in Vietnam. Why did American servicemen call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?" Why were there so many enemy villages there?

During long periods of time the ambush was the most common type of engagement for both sides. Armor and mech. units often formed night defensive positions in a manor similar to "circling the wagons as they did in the "wild west". There weren't many actual "enemy villages" as such. If the enemy were in a village and we went there they would usually leave and come back again after we were gone again. In those cases where a village was defended by either side the civilians would leave if they could.

During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?

Entirely different types of countryside, warfare, strategies and goals. Apples, oranges, peaches and pears. After the first ten or twelve times people get tired of coming out to wave. Although it did happen in this Cambodian ville:

 

[editec]

I cannot help but notice the distinct lack of fallen dominos.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ho Chi Minh was our ally for how many years and when? He rescued downed pilots for us in WWII. Read OSS reports from that era and their praise for him and his operation detailing Jap troop movements. Ask the pilots how they were treated. Trained by communists but he was a nationalist seeking independence for his country and was sympathetically pro American. We betrayed him and gave IndoChina back to the French. How many years did the French torture any and all Vietnamese people no matter what political party they were in? We financed and advised the French until 1954 when we betrayed them and gave Indochina to Diem. We financed and advised Diem until 1963 when we betrayed him and gave power to a list of failed leaders. What country fully supported the French and their colonial rule? Did France give independence to Viet Nam or hold it under their colonial grip in 1946? How many years did the French fight the Vietminh? A decade later they got their asses kicked and so what do we do? Support a dividing of the nation that props up a dictator in the south.

The South Vietnamese government we propped up over there was as corrupt as it gets. My brother served 3 tours there. Few if any of the young men that were related to everyone in power in the south served in the military there. Our men carried all the load.

Monday morning QBs are out in force again. Viet Nam was a massive fuck up. Our brave soldiers won every battle over there and for what? Sure, fucked up American politics fucked up the war as we should have never gone there. So if we would have bombed the north back to the stone age? What then, nore support for a corrupt government there. Their own army could not do shit with all the advanced weaponry we left. I hate the sorry ass bastard communists as much or more than anyone but ask the men on the ground over there what they feel. They will tell you the sorry ass in country citizens would not fight. ARVN troops were as bad as French troops and many would turn and run. Sure, some good troops with the mountain people and help from the Aussies and South Koreans but the government there was a cluster fuck.

 

[Circe]

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.

Wrong: that is the only way that does work. See: Clinton's war on Serbia, 10 1/2 weeks, a total win.

What has been shown not to work is the ten-year plus losing wars that go on forever, and then we retreat, having lost bad, bankrupt as a nation and severely divided.

You'd think we'd have had more than thirty years after the failed Vietnam War not to go down that same path with Iraq and Afghanistan, but noooooooooooooooo............

The guys who never served --- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld --- never learned the lesson.

Not having served in Vietnam was probably key. They simply didn't grok it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.

And the alternative has? Have you visited the Vietnam Wall?

 

[Gadawg73]

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.

Wrong: that is the only way that does work. See: Clinton's war on Serbia, 10 1/2 weeks, a total win.

What has been shown not to work is the ten-year plus losing wars that go on forever, and then we retreat, having lost bad, bankrupt as a nation and severely divided.

You'd think we'd have had more than thirty years after the failed Vietnam War not to go down that same path with Iraq and Afghanistan, but noooooooooooooooo............

The guys who never served --- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld --- never learned the lesson.

Not having served in Vietnam was probably key. They simply didn't grok it.

Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".

 

[Gadawg73]

My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:

WASTED.

And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.

 

[Circe]

Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".

Yep, that's what we always, always say.

"Lindsey Lohan's bellybutton lint could go into [Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Mogadishu, etc., etc.] and win in a few days!!!!" we brag.

And it's never, never true.

Clinton at least had the sense to understand THAT.

Clinton probably shouldn't have bothered, especially since we were bombing on behalf of Muslims, but at least he didn't get us bogged down in a ten-year losing war with no point whatsoever.

 

[Gadawg73]

Mississippi National Guard could have gone into Serbia and won with air support.
Clinton never served, he publicly "loathed the military".

Yep, that's what we always, always say.

"Lindsey Lohan's bellybutton lint could go into [Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria, Mogadishu, etc., etc.] and win in a few days!!!!" we brag.

And it's never, never true.

Clinton at least had the sense to understand THAT.

Clinton probably shouldn't have bothered, especially since we were bombing on behalf of Muslims, but at least he didn't get us bogged down in a ten-year losing war with no point whatsoever.

It was true in Serbia and that is all I stated was true.
Many historians label Clinton's involvement there "The Blowinsky Deflection".
For those of us that have a clue about military capabilities and logistics the cast dates back to Tito post WWII. Albanian nationalism led to this cluster fuck. Add in the League of Communists of Kosovo and the cocktail for disaster begins. Throw in Milosevic becoming President of Serbia and the brew cooks. He rallies all of the above.
Aircraft flew 40,000 combat missions.
Norwegian and British special forces brokered back room deals for a peace agreement.
Boy Scout Troop 401 from Hahira, Ga. could have come in and cleaned up after 40,000 combat mission air strikes.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.

Wrong: that is the only way that does work. See: Clinton's war on Serbia, 10 1/2 weeks, a total win.

What has been shown not to work is the ten-year plus losing wars that go on forever, and then we retreat, having lost bad, bankrupt as a nation and severely divided.

You'd think we'd have had more than thirty years after the failed Vietnam War not to go down that same path with Iraq and Afghanistan, but noooooooooooooooo............

The guys who never served --- Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld --- never learned the lesson.

Not having served in Vietnam was probably key. They simply didn't grok it.

Well lets see. Your way was attempted throughout WWII and it didn't work. Clinton tried it in Iraq and it didn't work. And-if you actually knew something about history-you would know that it was attempted in Vietnam. We dropped more bombs there than we did during all of WWII and we certainly didn't get what we wanted.

We could have "won" in Vietnam. We weren't allowed to try. And we did in fact win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual lesson we should have learned in Vietnam was that you shouldn't fight wars unless you intend to win.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I really think a quick bombing campaign or drones is the only sensible way to make war. Go in, bomb the hell out of them, get their concessions before we stop, then leave. No troops. No bases. No interest in what they do next.

Great idea!
Or at least it would be except for the fact that it's been tried repeatedly and is well proven not to work.

And the alternative has? Have you visited the Vietnam Wall?

I served in Vietnam. Those are much more than names to me. Yeah, tell me about the wall.

 

[9thIDdoc]

My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:

WASTED.

And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.

BULLSHIT. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.

 

[Oldguy]

We may not have won (we were never tasked with doing so) but we certainly didn't lose. We successfully carried out the mission we were given until we were given a new one. The American people betrayed our ally; not us. North Vietnam was being supported by the USSR and the PRC it was our cutting RSVN's supply line that doomed them. Lack of ammo rather than lack of will.

The United States gave far more support to the South Vietnamese government than the amount of support given to North Vietnam by the Soviets and the Communist Chinese.

You seem to have served in Vietnam. Why did American servicemen call rural South Vietnam "Indian country?" Why were there so many enemy villages there?

During the Second World War there were no enemy villages in France, or even in Italy, which had recently been an ally of Germany. American troops were greeted as liberators when they went through rural villages there. Why did this not happen in South Vietnam?

To be fair, "enemy village" is a bit of a misnomer. Just because we weren't welcomed with open arms doesn't necessarily mean they supported the other side. For that matter, just because American and ARVN soldiers received fire from a village didn't mean it was "enemy" either. Villages in the countryside were used by all sides for their own purposes and designating one enemy or friendly often had little to do with the political persuasion of the inhabitants.

 

[Circe]

And we did in fact win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual lesson we should have learned in Vietnam was that you shouldn't fight wars unless you intend to win.[/COLOR]

I agree that we should have learned in Vietnam that we should not fight wars we don't intend to win.

But I certainly do not agree we have done anything but lost, lost, lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Got driven out, in fact. Same as in Vietnam.

It's a failed warmaking model, and I do not understand why they keep using it.

These perpetual wars are the greatest danger to our nation's stability, because war is what bankrupts societies most often so that they collapse, and we keep waging these long, far away, incredibly expensive wars and never getting ANYthing out of them except huge deficits and the world hating us.

 

[Gadawg73]

My brother and his buddies in country '66-'68 had a name for the death of their buddies over there:

WASTED.

And that is 100% correct. You can not fool the boots on the ground. They KNEW this was a political war ONLY.
Every soldier that gave his life in Nam had his life WASTED FOR NOTHING.

BULLSHIT. They died while serving their country carrying out the mission they were given exactly like our soldiers who died in any other conflict and they deserve exactly the same respect. It can be argued that the mission was not in fact worth the price but that is an entirely different argument.

I agree with that, did not state any different.
You won every battle over there. That is my point.

 

[regent]

But if we don't go to war for whatever reason, every so often, what happens to our John Wayne America? Do new generations coming along need a war every twenty or thirty years or so? Even Teddy Roosevelt apologized for the size and scope of the Spanish American War. Who makes our wars for us, politicians, genetics, the military, egos, bar room talk, fear, what? Wars are the one constant of history.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How Vietnam ended

With the deaths of 58,000 American soldiers and 1.1 million NVA soldiers and 1.2 million injured over absolutely nothing.

 

[Circe]

But if we don't go to war for whatever reason, every so often, what happens to our John Wayne America? Do new generations coming along need a war every twenty or thirty years or so? Even Teddy Roosevelt apologized for the size and scope of the Spanish American War. Who makes our wars for us, politicians, genetics, the military, egos, bar room talk, fear, what? Wars are the one constant of history.

Genetics, IMO --- humans are evolved to war with each other and take the resources from the weaker populations and expand at their expense. (The American Indians, for example.) There are other ways to expand genetic populations at other populations' expense --- taking slaves who then populate most of the New World, for instance.

But mostly it's done by war. The Romans expanded at the Gauls' expense, then several hundred years later, the Gauls expanded at the Romans' expense.

New presidents and kings always have to have their very own war. If they have a long reign, they want several wars. Often this bankrupts the country, but there is something about a king or a president that just has to have a war of his very own.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

its the 58,000 plus kids I remember most

half of them with Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people

exactly.well said.It pisses me how the lie was created that that bastard DICK Nixon ended the war in vietnam.

It was the american people that ended the war.Not Dick Nixon.

Nixon sabotoged the paris peace talks delaying the war and expanding it letting it go on for another 4 more years.If he really had wanted to end the war,he could have done so in 1969.

It wasnt the vietcong or the NVA that murdered all those 58,000 americans.it was those bastards Dick Nixon and LBJ.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lbj-tapes-nixon-sabotaged-vietnam-peace-talks/

http://disinfo.com/2013/03/newly-de...nixon-sabotaged-vietnam-peace-to-get-elected/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Another anniversary is coming up on May 4th.

OHIO CSNY ( got audio back) - Kent State Massacre Montage - YouTube

CSN&Y- Ohio

Our wonderful DICK Nixon sending the military after protesters murdering four college students.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dante
Quote: Originally Posted by namvet

so LBJ had NO responsibility here at all. thanks for clearing that up
LBJ? Who said he didn't.

We all see you do not deny or refute what you are attacking.

half of the US service deaths happened with the Kissinger/Nixon secret peace plan. In a few years they doubled the deaths of American service people

Vietnam belonged to the Vietnamese. We did not belong there. We stayed too long. Most all of the heroic sacrifices were for nothing.
you launched the attack I just asked a question. ill ask another. why did LBJ order the bombing halt after TET???
you attack while refuting nothing.



yet a timeline of posts proves you are full of shit. why is that?

LbJ left office in 1968
You've noticed that about him as well huh?


Nixon promised to end the war, not win it. He promised 'peace' not 'victory'


Why are right wingers like PoliChic so incredibly ignorant about American history?


The Nukes of October: Richard Nixon's Secret Plan to Bring Peace to Vietnam

Quote:
must be because she is a die hard republican.No surprise since she thinks Reagan was a great president as you also proved to be untrue as well did many others.