Acting Strong. What a crock of you know what.

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The domino theory makes sense if you make the assumption that controlling more territory makes you more powerful. But it doesn't. You have a finite number of soldiers, and a finite economy to support them. Invading other countries makes you weaker and spreads your resources thin.

Russia wants to bleed money to Vietnam? Good, let them. They want to try and hold Afghanistan? By all means, let them tie up their resources there. Eventually they'll go bankrupt, and the people they formerly occupied will have a knee-jerk opposition to communism. As it is now, there are probably more people in France and Germany who think socialism can work than there are in China and Vietnam.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, overstretching military resources for unachievable objectives is always a bad idea. Every nation has to know its limits. Ah, the irony.

 

[Dr Grump]

And nobody could win a war McNamara's way. He was incompetent at his job. Simple as that.[/COLOR]

You ever see The Fog of War?

 

[Gunny]

From what I have read it was a given that Ho would have won the election in the South. That is why elections were not allowed to proceed.

That is an assumption on somebody's part. The South was the refuge of those that prospered under French colonialsm. They were hardly going to embrace giving away their prosperity for Ho's ideals when they liked their own just fine.

At the opposite end, you have the NLF -- VietCong. People who suffered under French colonialism, with perhaps a spattering of Nationalists in the mix.

You are right that some were simply anti-Diem. You are wrong that many south vietnamese did not support Minh. As I said, it was a given that he would have won an election.

Disagree. Define "many." "Some" South Vietnamese supported Ho. As stated previously, the ones who had a hate-on for the French colonialsts and remnants of their social infrastructure.

Your average Vietnamese peasant didn't care if it was Ho, Diem, or Captain Kangaroo. Either way, they had their little village and rice paddies. People who struggle to survive have little time for idealism. That is a luxury of those with too much time on their hands.

It most certainly was not a given Ho would win anything.

If you are talking about Saigon, yes mostly anti-Diem but still not communist. When you get to the rural villages it was very pro-Minh. And of course, the battles were not lost in Saigon and southern cities...we were defeated in the jungles and the rice fields.

First, re-read above. You get to the villages and nobody cared. They struggled thorugh a life from cradle to grave that had been lived by their predecessors for thousands of years without much change. Ho, China, France, Diem -- it just didn't matter.

We were not defeated in the cities, jungles and/or rice fields. We were defeated HERE AT HOME by our own hands. To suggest we lost militarily in Vietnam is ludicrous.


It is a crock of shit because it would have never had a significant impact. The

Assumption on your part. The only thing that really checked the communist movement in SE Asia was Thailand. Communism is a great ideal for the "have not's" to embrace since it takes away from the "have's." Plays right into their envy.

The tactics of the Vietnamese certainly hurt the United States. There is the classic story of the little kid running to a helicopter. The helicopter did not take off, thinking the little kid needed help. Instead he tossed a grenade killing all of the American on the helicopter.

But homefield advantage was decisive in Vietnam. They had Jungle to hide in, trails to deliver supplies and troops across the north/south and through other countries, and they had their infamous tunnels.

We could overcome this sort of warfare in the islands of Japan because they were Islands. In the end there were only so many places the enemy could hide on island. Not so in Vietnam.

Don't know where you've been nor got your info, but our military was as adept at jungle warfare as any Vietnamese. In every effort that it was employed to suit the battlefield and tactics, we were successful. Unfortunately, politicians and chair-polishing generals continually insisted on trying to wage a conventional war.

Even if we had used Goldwater's suggestion of nukes...it likely would not have helped. The enemy was anyone, anywhere. Plus you have to ask yourselves, is a nuke worth it in this instance. And of course, it is not.



You can criticize McNamara and his team for their use of statistics and what not, but they are one of the reasons we have the M-16.

The military rejected its design, built versions of the gun wrong so that it would fail tests and eventually rejected it as the successor of the M-14. A gun company purchased then purchased the gun for commercial sale. It was then recognized by an Air force general, sent through the channels, and eventually picked up by McNamara and his team and given the title M-16..

Dude, your little "history" of the M-16 is WAY out there. Eugene Stoner built the gun, and he built it to spec. The gun had flaws -- after all it was a new design -- and they were ironed out, as are the flaws in ANY precision instrument.

I'm not sure WHERE the McNamara connection comes into play. So, he rubberstamped the paperwork for the M-16. My opinion that he was incompetent as SecDef has nothing to do with that.

The old addage "looks good on paper, but will it fly?" applies here. McNamara tried to wage a war with a slide-rule and statistics. It accounts for the disparity in tactics between the opposing forces. His had nothing to do with battlefield reality.

I have no real idea where you get the revisionist notion we lost on the battlefield in Vietnam. Probably because without that, the subversive lefties at home would have to place responsibility where it belongs -- on themselves. Militarily, we kicked the snot out of the NVA and/or VC at every turn.

 

[Gunny]

You ever see The Fog of War?

A movie, I presume? Can't say as I have.

 

[1549]

Dude, your little "history" of the M-16 is WAY out there. Eugene Stoner built the gun, and he built it to spec. The gun had flaws -- after all it was a new design -- and they were ironed out, as are the flaws in ANY precision instrument.

I'm not sure WHERE the McNamara connection comes into play. So, he rubberstamped the paperwork for the M-16. My opinion that he was incompetent as SecDef has nothing to do with that.

The old addage "looks good on paper, but will it fly?" applies here. McNamara tried to wage a war with a slide-rule and statistics. It accounts for the disparity in tactics between the opposing forces. His had nothing to do with battlefield reality.

I have no real idea where you get the revisionist notion we lost on the battlefield in Vietnam. Probably because without that, the subversive lefties at home would have to place responsibility where it belongs -- on themselves. Militarily, we kicked the snot out of the NVA and/or VC at every turn.

I am going to skip over most of your arguments. Its not that I think they are meaningless, its just that we clearly disagree...why beat the dead horse. I will say though that the have nots are not as important in global politics as the established countries, thus their turn to communism would have little effect and did not warrant the extreme number of casualties.

oh, and regarding the M-16, I saw a documentary on its origins on the history channel. The gun has a very interesting and turbulent history.

Here is where the stance that the U.S. 'lost' the Vietnam war comes from. It was not a war of survival, it was a war of containment in a country far far away. So what is victory? The containment of the communsim? Defeating the communist North?

Either way, we were going to run into problems. Pacifying villages failed miserably and unlike the U.S., body counts were not a factor for the Vietminh. If we wanted to root out communism for good, we would probably still be there today. It would be a never ending guerrila war. The North was constantly growing in size, and communism had infultrated the South as well. Operation Phoenix was meant to root out the communist recruiters and leaders in the South, and while it was somewhat successful (though very illegal) it also demonstrated the extent to which the communsists were breeding their ranks from within the South itself.

On the other hand, a war that is not fough for survival must have its limits. There is a point that you must ask yourself "is this worth it"? Vietnam had certainly reached its limits. 56,000 casualties, the POW's and MIA's and the demoralized troops. There were a lot of guys who simply did not want to be there.

You criticize the left a lot and student protestors a lot. But society relies upon disagreement. Just as our government was based on checks and balances, society is as well. That is the role of the media, to inform the people of daily happenings. I could agree with the argument that protestors took it too far. And I don't agree with Jane Fonda going to Hanoi. But there needs to be a group that carries public sentiment into the limelight.

I am sure that LBJ and Nixon both would have loved to carry this thing on as long as they could for the simple reason of pride. But there were too many angry parents, too many disgruntled veterans, and too many casualties to carry on a war that's sole purpose is to contain an ideology that really can't harm us outside of the Soviet Union and Cuba. By invading the convention, by going wild on college campuses, the protestors were able to do their part in ending a war that was beginning to border on lunacy.

There was an article in the New York Times about how reporters in the past protected the Presidents. It brought up somet interesting stories, some funny, some sad, others just sick, that the newspapers did not print in order to give the President privacy, or to save his reputation. One sick story that was not printed because of the craziness was a meeting with a few reporters during which LBJ whipped 'it' out and said 'This is why we are in Vietnam'.

Sometimes you just have to say, the means does not equal the reward.

 

[Gunny]

I am going to skip over most of your arguments. Its not that I think they are meaningless, its just that we clearly disagree...why beat the dead horse. I will say though that the have nots are not as important in global politics as the established countries, thus their turn to communism would have little effect and did not warrant the extreme number of casualties.

Hindsight is 20/20. Vietnam became an issue right after WWII and stayed on the front burner until the mid-70s. It began with France attempting to reassert colonial control and at some point along the line they began selling it as standing up to Communism.

Ho Chi Minh was a commie. The Vietminh was a communist organization. The logical conclusion is that He/they would have, and eventually did, install a commie government.

What did not warrant even one casualty was the disgraceful way US politicians gave away fighting and winning a war for votes.

oh, and regarding the M-16, I saw a documentary on its origins on the history channel. The gun has a very interesting and turbulent history.

Look at the history of the M-1 Garand. None of the traditionalists wanted to give up their "tried and true" Springfields for it either.

The biggest problem with the M-16 was bureaucratic rather than mechanical. The weapon originally used lubricated ammunition. The Army bought their usual overkill amount. Then, one of their demands to Stoner was that it be capable of firing unlubricated ammo.

The modification was made, but some beancounters in their infinite wisdom decided to use up the "perfectly good" stockpile of ammo before acquiring more. The lubricated ammo created unacceptable chamber pressure on combustion, and cause the weapon to jam. The gun got blame because the bureacracy was hardly going to come out and admit they screwed up.

The runner-up most notable reason for jams amidst cries that the weapon was unrealiable was people not cleaning their weapons. All I can say to that is pack the engine compartment of your vehicle with mud and turn the engine on.

The biggest reason, IMO, for most of the controversy is that the weapon was field tested in a real war. Not really the brightest idea I've heard.

Here is where the stance that the U.S. 'lost' the Vietnam war comes from. It was not a war of survival, it was a war of containment in a country far far away. So what is victory? The containment of the communsim? Defeating the communist North?

Either way, we were going to run into problems. Pacifying villages failed miserably and unlike the U.S., body counts were not a factor for the Vietminh. If we wanted to root out communism for good, we would probably still be there today. It would be a never ending guerrila war. The North was constantly growing in size, and communism had infultrated the South as well. Operation Phoenix was meant to root out the communist recruiters and leaders in the South, and while it was somewhat successful (though very illegal) it also demonstrated the extent to which the communsists were breeding their ranks from within the South itself.

My point here is that you have stated/implied the US military lost the Vietnam War. The US military did NOT lose the Vietnam War, for the very reasons you yourself state. When the US military was employed as a fighting force it had no equal. It did an exceptional job of attempting to adapt to the situational reality while following an arbitrary set of rules the enemy did not adhere to.

The "illegal" ops were the ones that had the highest success rate. Then, as now, the outcries of the clueless hamstring the military and take away its advantage.

I also disagree with your numbers. Ho was NOT overwhelmingly popular as you keep stating. When they first defined the DMZ at the 17th parallel, a grace period was given for those who wished to move either north or south. It was expected that those who succeeded under colonial law woul dmigrate south -- an estimated 30K. Refugees were promised a ride.

Over a million refugees fled the North, overwhelming the logistics that had been based on the 30K estimate.

The NLF in the south was made up of anything anti-Diem. That does not necessarily mean they were pro-Ho. While the core group were card-carrying commies, the rank and file were likely as not to just be disgruntled S Vietnamese.

On the other hand, a war that is not fough for survival must have its limits. There is a point that you must ask yourself "is this worth it"? Vietnam had certainly reached its limits. 56,000 casualties, the POW's and MIA's and the demoralized troops. There were a lot of guys who simply did not want to be there.

Your whole line of thinking here is flawed, IMO. There should be NO war fought wiht arbitrary limitations placed on the value of the objective.

Leaving Vietnam without closure disgraced EVERY servicemember that bled, sweated, cried or died. It disgraced us as a Nation. And as a Nation, every treaty we had with any foreign nation suddenly became a worthless piece of paper.

Where a troop wants to be is irrelevant. They go where they're sent. They don't get to pick and choose which wars they wish to fight and which ones they don't.

You criticize the left a lot and student protestors a lot. But society relies upon disagreement. Just as our government was based on checks and balances, society is as well. That is the role of the media, to inform the people of daily happenings. I could agree with the argument that protestors took it too far. And I don't agree with Jane Fonda going to Hanoi. But there needs to be a group that carries public sentiment into the limelight.

If you look, my criticism is of those that "took it too far." I have zero problem with voicing dissent in a proper forum like an educated person with manners. When it's all over-the-top extremism, chants based on nothing but lies, and my all-time favorite: committing violence to protest violence, I've got no use for those people.

I am sure that LBJ and Nixon both would have loved to carry this thing on as long as they could for the simple reason of pride. But there were too many angry parents, too many disgruntled veterans, and too many casualties to carry on a war that's sole purpose is to contain an ideology that really can't harm us outside of the Soviet Union and Cuba. By invading the convention, by going wild on college campuses, the protestors were able to do their part in ending a war that was beginning to border on lunacy.

Here again, you are using arbitrary and inflated "too many _____'s". All wars are based on ideology in one way or another, and I can only assume you did not live through the Cold War as you have made several statements alluding to it not being able to hurt us. At the time, it was perceived as a real threat.

As far as the extremist, dirty, hippy idealogue protestors go, they were and are a disgrace to this Nation. The very second they turned violent they should have been squashed, period.

There was an article in the New York Times about how reporters in the past protected the Presidents. It brought up somet interesting stories, some funny, some sad, others just sick, that the newspapers did not print in order to give the President privacy, or to save his reputation. One sick story that was not printed because of the craziness was a meeting with a few reporters during which LBJ whipped 'it' out and said 'This is why we are in Vietnam'.

Sometimes you just have to say, the means does not equal the reward.

The media protecting the Presidency in order to hide flaws/weaknesses from the rest of the world was actually pretty smart. Too bad that practice has gone the way of the dodo in favor of sensationalism, and in the case of a Republican, villification.

You mean the cost doesn't equal the reward? You keep returning over and over again to "worth."

What's the pricetag for YOUR freedom?

 

[Psychoblues]

The media protecting the Presidency in order to hide flaws/weaknesses from the rest of the world was actually pretty smart. Too bad that practice has gone the way of the dodo in favor of sensationalism, and in the case of a Republican, villification.

You mean the cost doesn't equal the reward? You keep returning over and over again to "worth."

What's the pricetag for YOUR freedom?

Now, that's a genuine pearl of wisdom.

I'm glad I didn't think of it in those terems.

Psychoblues