General Westmoreland

[harmonica]

Hanoi “dismissed the assumption that the principal and primary means test of success must be military combat,” observes former State Department officer Douglas Pike, one of the most perceptive American students of the revolutionary forces in Vietnam. “They realized . . . that it might be possible to achieve a change of war venue and determine its outcome away from the battlefield.”

etc
The Genius of North Vietnam's War Strategy

 

[GLASNOST]

If Johnson had dared to commit the same illegal movements as the North did into the South......

"Illegal Vietnamese movement" from the north to the south of their own country?

 

[GLASNOST]

we lost
1. the communist took over SV
2. 50,000 dead and thousands more maimed/etc

Straight forward, thank you. Truth is always simpler than lies.

 

[Picaro]

....the US could NEVER win in Nam, but USMC Gen. Walt wanted to do it differently--small USMC/SV units--getting to know the people/etc
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/williamson.pdf
Lewis William Walt - Wikipedia
etc

Being barred from the northern part kind of put a damper on that idea, though it did have much to recommend it. Viet Nam is quickly becoming an American satellite these days.

we could've even went into the North and nothing would change--they would've just:
waited us out
moved their troops

A US “Victory” would have led to Viet Cong led insurgency supported by Russia and China

We would have had to remain to support the Saigon Government and would still be taking casualties

Rubbish. What do you think the VC were? They were crushed by Tet, and their own leadership says this; it was the U.S. press and left wingers that kept them at war, with bullshit stories about how we were 'losing n stuff'. And we all know who won the Cold War, and Johnson's escalation in Viet Nam went a long way in bankrupting the Khrushchev Doctrine. It had to shut down its global insurrection campaign in 1973, and the West took it to a soft landing after that. It's more than stupid to keep babbling how ' we lost n stuff', when it's immediately obvious we didn't lose a thing.

we lost
1. the communist took over SV
2. 50,000 dead and thousands more maimed/etc

Congress abandoned them in 1975. We fed them to the wolves after it was clear the Soviets had expired as a world power. China was kept out of VN, the Soviets couldn't exploit it for any gain; nobody took their threats seriously after 1973, our SEATO allies were safe.. Containment worked.

 

[Picaro]

we could've even went into the North and nothing would change--they would've just:
waited us out
moved their troops

A US “Victory” would have led to Viet Cong led insurgency supported by Russia and China

We would have had to remain to support the Saigon Government and would still be taking casualties

Rubbish. What do you think the VC were? They were crushed by Tet, and their own leadership says this; it was the U.S. press and left wingers that kept them at war, with bullshit stories about how we were 'losing n stuff'. And we all know who won the Cold War, and Johnson's escalation in Viet Nam went a long way in bankrupting the Khrushchev Doctrine. It had to shut down its global insurrection campaign in 1973, and the West took it to a soft landing after that. It's more than stupid to keep babbling how ' we lost n stuff', when it's immediately obvious we didn't lose a thing.

Actually, their own leadership said they would have fought indefinitely. They had been fighting nonstop for 25 years, Tet was not going to stop them.

After Tet, it became obvious ....1,2,3 what are we fighting for?
It became obvious to all that we didn’t have a plan or an exit strategy

Actually Giap said they were finished as an armed resistance movement.

like the US defeats in the Revolutionary War?
The 25 Deadliest Battles of the Revolutionary War - Journal of the American Revolution

Nope. Tet was their last gasp. After that NVA troops swarmed over the borders, against the UN mandates we were abiding by.

 

[Picaro]

Being barred from the northern part kind of put a damper on that idea, though it did have much to recommend it. Viet Nam is quickly becoming an American satellite these days.

we could've even went into the North and nothing would change--they would've just:
waited us out
moved their troops

A US “Victory” would have led to Viet Cong led insurgency supported by Russia and China

We would have had to remain to support the Saigon Government and would still be taking casualties

Rubbish. What do you think the VC were? They were crushed by Tet, and their own leadership says this; it was the U.S. press and left wingers that kept them at war, with bullshit stories about how we were 'losing n stuff'. And we all know who won the Cold War, and Johnson's escalation in Viet Nam went a long way in bankrupting the Khrushchev Doctrine. It had to shut down its global insurrection campaign in 1973, and the West took it to a soft landing after that. It's more than stupid to keep babbling how ' we lost n stuff', when it's immediately obvious we didn't lose a thing.

we lost
1. the communist took over SV
2. 50,000 dead and thousands more maimed/etc

AND
the US divided
losing credibility all over the world

Who did we 'lose credibility' with? Can you name a country that abandoned their treaties with us, or any other deal, due to our 'lack of credibility', and ran to join up with the Soviets or the Chinese??? We were propping up the SU from 1973 on; what were they going to do, refuse our wheat, refined petroleum imports, and all the rest, cuz we 'lacked credibility'?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Being barred from the northern part kind of put a damper on that idea, though it did have much to recommend it. Viet Nam is quickly becoming an American satellite these days.

we could've even went into the North and nothing would change--they would've just:
waited us out
moved their troops

A US “Victory” would have led to Viet Cong led insurgency supported by Russia and China

We would have had to remain to support the Saigon Government and would still be taking casualties

Rubbish. What do you think the VC were? They were crushed by Tet, and their own leadership says this; it was the U.S. press and left wingers that kept them at war, with bullshit stories about how we were 'losing n stuff'. And we all know who won the Cold War, and Johnson's escalation in Viet Nam went a long way in bankrupting the Khrushchev Doctrine. It had to shut down its global insurrection campaign in 1973, and the West took it to a soft landing after that. It's more than stupid to keep babbling how ' we lost n stuff', when it's immediately obvious we didn't lose a thing.

we lost
1. the communist took over SV
2. 50,000 dead and thousands more maimed/etc

Congress abandoned them in 1975. We fed them to the wolves after it was clear the Soviets had expired as a world power. China was kept out of VN, the Soviets couldn't exploit it for any gain; nobody took their threats seriously after 1973, our SEATO allies were safe.. Containment worked.

Nixon cut the deal in 73 where if the North were to attack, the US would resupply the south and provide air power. When the north attacked with a force of about 550K, the air power never happened nor did the resupply. The South had an army of over 1.3 million but only had enough rifles to arm about 400K with only one loaded mag each. They didn't have the jet fuel for their jets or their choppers, they had a severe shortage of Avgas for their Attack Planes. The North could NOT have successfully invaded had the US done the promised resupply even without providing the air power. The South had enough air power on their own to handle the job but not the gas to fly the air power. I knew it was all lost when a captured F-5 attacked the South Vietnamese Presidential Palace. You can't win a war against a well equipped army by using rakes, hoes and clubs.

 

[Picaro]

we could've even went into the North and nothing would change--they would've just:
waited us out
moved their troops

A US “Victory” would have led to Viet Cong led insurgency supported by Russia and China

We would have had to remain to support the Saigon Government and would still be taking casualties

Rubbish. What do you think the VC were? They were crushed by Tet, and their own leadership says this; it was the U.S. press and left wingers that kept them at war, with bullshit stories about how we were 'losing n stuff'. And we all know who won the Cold War, and Johnson's escalation in Viet Nam went a long way in bankrupting the Khrushchev Doctrine. It had to shut down its global insurrection campaign in 1973, and the West took it to a soft landing after that. It's more than stupid to keep babbling how ' we lost n stuff', when it's immediately obvious we didn't lose a thing.

we lost
1. the communist took over SV
2. 50,000 dead and thousands more maimed/etc

Congress abandoned them in 1975. We fed them to the wolves after it was clear the Soviets had expired as a world power. China was kept out of VN, the Soviets couldn't exploit it for any gain; nobody took their threats seriously after 1973, our SEATO allies were safe.. Containment worked.

Nixon cut the deal in 73 where if the North were to attack, the US would resupply the south and provide air power. When the north attacked with a force of about 550K, the air power never happened nor did the resupply. The South had an army of over 1.3 million but only had enough rifles to arm about 400K with only one loaded mag each. They didn't have the jet fuel for their jets or their choppers, they had a severe shortage of Avgas for their Attack Planes. The North could NOT have successfully invaded had the US done the promised resupply even without providing the air power. The South had enough air power on their own to handle the job but not the gas to fly the air power. I knew it was all lost when a captured F-5 attacked the South Vietnamese Presidential Palace. You can't win a war against a well equipped army by using rakes, hoes and clubs.

It was a shameful stab in the back by our politicians, but then the caliber of pols around in the 70's were trash pit rejects.

 

[Pilot1]

Walter Cronkite was also a major cause of losing the American public, and the political war in Vietnam. We won militarily, but lost in spirit. However, it did show the Russians, and Chinese we were willing to fight Communist Expansion as the Domino Theory was a reality at the time.

 

[Picaro]

Walter Cronkite was also a major cause of losing the American public, and the political war in Vietnam. We won militarily, but lost in spirit. However, it did show the Russians, and Chinese we were willing to fight Communist Expansion as the Domino Theory was a reality at the time.

Yes. As I said earlier, it was about more than just VN, it was about SEATO, Africa, the ME, and SA, too.

 

[rightwinger]

Walter Cronkite was also a major cause of losing the American public, and the political war in Vietnam. We won militarily, but lost in spirit. However, it did show the Russians, and Chinese we were willing to fight Communist Expansion as the Domino Theory was a reality at the time.

Cronkite was right

Those claiming victory was just around the corner were wrong. Cost us almost 60,000 lives

 

[GLASNOST]

Vietnam was fighting a war to break the will of the US
How many deaths were we willing to tolerate?
20, 30, 40 thousand?

Turned out to be just under 60,000

Would we have accepted 100 or 200 thousand to gain victory?

I think we know the answer to that question. Towards the end of the 1960's the cat was out of the bag (the corruption that kept the war going) and became public knowledge thanks to the anti-war movement with an increasing number of Vets joining the forces against the war and I don't think the American population was willing to tolerate another dozen dead.

 

[rightwinger]

Vietnam was fighting a war to break the will of the US
How many deaths were we willing to tolerate?
20, 30, 40 thousand?

Turned out to be just under 60,000

Would we have accepted 100 or 200 thousand to gain victory?

I think we know the answer to that question. Towards the end of the 1960's the cat was out of the bag (the corruption that kept the war going) and became public knowledge thanks to the anti-war movement with an increasing number of Vets joining the forces against the war and I don't think the American population was willing to tolerate another dozen dead.

And that was the key to N Vietnam’s strategy

They were willing to suffer a million dead for victory
We weren’t

 

[GLASNOST]

... Those claiming victory was just around the corner were wrong. Cost us almost 60,000 lives

You speak of "cost" in Ameican lives. Come on. That is no "cost" as long as the rotation system & conscription kept sending 19-year-old boys over to man the tax-payer-dollar bought guns. It's a win-win for them. Only profit, no loss.

The real question here is ... how many gazillions of dollars did the Military-Industrial Complex rake in per week in Vietnam? Per day? There was no such thing as "victory" in the standard sense of the word. Victory is a military term and was intentionally elusive. Profit is a business term and there was no end in sight to the profit gains. Not enough this month? No problem. Send over a couple thousand more boys WITH GUNS. No losses only increased gains. You could tally the business profits for every "bang" and every bullet that was fired.

 

[GLASNOST]

And that was the key to N Vietnam’s strategy
They were willing to suffer a million dead for victory We weren’t

It's their country. It's not as though they would be willing to find some deserted island to move their lives and culture to. Vietnam could only move forward. They had no other choice. They had been under the thumb of France for how long was it? They had whipped the pants off the French and damnd if they were going to let the Yankees subjugate them. They had quickly come to the point of "Liberty or Death". They dared death and took whatever consequences that might befall them.

 

[Lysistrata]

Thank you. My brother is as well as he will ever be.

I am not going to ask unless you want me to.

I would never, ever, call you an asshole.

That's OK. I learned to understand and my tolerance has improved greatly since then.

Money is the key.

Yes. But in a glutenous way.

About the time that you were in Nam, my beloved aunt, a treasure in our family, was serving there. Career USAF. Medical staff. Her job was to help save the lives of the wounded. Her name was Captain Anne Marie Yukon. She left Nam and was serving at Andrews AFB, which is why I went to college in DC. She first got to me when I weighed a little more than six pounds. She tried to teach me well on our journeys together. "Look left, look right, what decision do you make? Make a decision". She knew that her older sister, my biological mother, was incompetent.

This should be a lesson to everyone that we all have baggage to be put in order if we can ever make our lives worthwhile.

I really don't know what to say. To this day, I look out for my brother. Baggage? I've got tons.

 

[danielpalos]

High command can only do what they are tasked to do. What were we planning to do with Vietnam?

 

[GLASNOST]

High command can only do what they are tasked to do.

That's true.

What were we planning to do with Vietnam?

Ask high command and they'll inform you that they were never tasked to do anything but shoot and bomb. Have you not been following this thread closely?

 

[danielpalos]

High command can only do what they are tasked to do.

That's true.

What were we planning to do with Vietnam?

Ask high command and they'll inform you that they were never tasked to do anything but shoot and bomb. Have you not been following this thread closely?

we were not planning to lose.

 

[rightwinger]

High command can only do what they are tasked to do.

That's true.

What were we planning to do with Vietnam?

Ask high command and they'll inform you that they were never tasked to do anything but shoot and bomb. Have you not been following this thread closely?

we were not planning to lose.

We kinda knew we were not going to win