Vietnam War was unwinnable

[9thIDdoc]

..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.

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

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.

.....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

.....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

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!!!!!!!

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]

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

After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.

......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!! how do you explain that?

THEY INVADED with 25 DIVISIONS , GOD you are stupid read a fucking history book.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

..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 —

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...

and---???

 

[harmonica]

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.

.....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]

..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.

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

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.

.....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

.....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

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!!!!!!!

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.

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]

..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.

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

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.

.....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

.....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

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!!!!!!!

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

.....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

You can't much of anything right. I have mentioned politicians; not parties.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

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.

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.

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]

..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.

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

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.

.....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

.....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

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!!!!!!!

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.

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

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]

..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.

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

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.

.....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

.....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

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!!!!!!!

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.

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

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]

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.

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?

When I use it it is because I disagree with what you posted (or at least most of what you posted).

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

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.

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?

When I use it it is because I disagree with what you posted (or at least most of what you posted).

Ok. What do you disagree with?