Vietnam War was unwinnable

[rightwinger]

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!”

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

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

Please read the links I provided.

I just proved the Nixon link is crap

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.

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 Journalpublished 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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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...

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]

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.14https://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]

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.

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...

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.