The batttle for Chosin

[9thIDdoc]

..
..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not
..we developed the Bay of Pigs--big stupid loss that not only wasted $$$$, but also embarrassed/etc the US
...remember 1975?

View attachment 193114

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

 

[rightwinger]

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

In every war you enter, you need to consider......is the end result worth it?

Jeopardizing the lives of our military personnel for some political posturing is not worth it. Yes....they lie to us
They lie about the reason for being there, they lie about how many casualties, they lie about cost, they lie about duration
In fact, they will tell us any lie that will get them the war they are asking for

 

[Vandalshandle]

As a matter of fact, even McNamara admitted in his final years that Vietnam was a civil war.

 

[Vandalshandle]

More fun MacArthur facts. He had his corncob pipe designed by a pipe company, just for the image, so that he could always be picked out of a photo in a crowd. Unfortunately, it was virtually impossible to keep lit, so he never smoked it. He used regular pipes to smoke in private. He also had his aids beat up his new hats, and to put sweat stains on them.

 

[harmonica]

..we fought in/gave mucho $$$$/etc Nam, Laos, Cambodia--all lost to communism
we tried to stop communism--but did not

We fought Communism until the American people-through their pet politicians- decided to stop. We didn't lose anything.

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

we fought for over seven years....helped for over ten
gave SV air and naval superiority ......still a loss

hold it--you said with different ROEs, the outcome would have been different
you made the claim--it's up to you to prove it--not for me to disprove it
when prosecutors make a claim that someone is guilty, it's up to the claimers [ prosecutors, you, ] to prove the claim
...how idiotic =

And no proof we wouldn't have.

so we both have no proof on different ROEs!!!! so, your initial claim of that is without proof--YET, you claimed it!!!!!....then you claim I have no proof !!! hahahah ...idiotic
so your claim of different ROEs is a worthless claim

 

[harmonica]

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

In every war you enter, you need to consider......is the end result worth it?

Jeopardizing the lives of our military personnel for some political posturing is not worth it. Yes....they lie to us
They lie about the reason for being there, they lie about how many casualties, they lie about cost, they lie about duration
In fact, they will tell us any lie that will get them the war they are asking for

we did NOT '''stand aside'''
500,000 troops/etc
naval/air superiority
airfield construction
BILLION $$$$$
training
etc etc ---no--we did not stand aside
for the last time---SVs government was corrupt and worthless
no way we were going to win the war
I see you back up your points with ZERO links/evidence
while I provide evidence

 

[harmonica]

As a matter of fact, even McNamara admitted in his final years that Vietnam was a civil war.

could and should have withdrawn from South Vietnam" in late 1963 after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem or a year or so late

this is just basic common sense--the country you are trying to save murders it's head of state

 

[harmonica]

Morely Safer knew something was ''wrong'' in 1965!!
at the 4:30 mark

if you read about Vietnam, some soldiers and Marines said the same thing

 

[harmonica]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

 

[harmonica]

None of the United Nations forces, including our own, had the slightest chance of defeating the Chinese forces. Our forces were all mechanized, and could only advance using roads in North Korea. Chinese forces were not, therefor they traveled and fought in the mountains and hills with mostly infantry, and some limited small artillery. They traveled at night to avoid our aircraft. They had little regard for their own lives. They attacked in waves, with the 3rd and 4th wave not even having been issued guns and ammo. They picked that up from dead soldiers. The final wave was a blocking wave with machine guns, with orders to fire at any Chinese troops retreating without orders.

Actually we did in fact defeat the Chinese forces badly.

I'll have to get in touch with my high school history teacher. He told me that the Chinese fought us to a stalemate. Even though he was in that war, I guess that he did not realize that we had won.

Read. I didn't say we won the the Korean War (although there has never been an official end to that war, just a cease fire) I said we defeated the Chinese forces badly and that is true. They attacked our troops and gained not a damn thing except hundreds of thousands of dead Chinese.

50,000 Americans died

What did we gain?

What did we gain?

Honor credibility and retribution against enemies' sneak attacks against our troops. American blood was shed; you think we could retain any credibility by playing the sniveling coward and forswearing our commitment to an ally and running crying to our mommies? We stopped the spread of Communism as we were committed to do.

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over
it didn't stop Castro
etc
I ask AGAIN!!--what effect did losing Nam, Cambodia, and Laos [ dominoes ] have on the US?
--many people and countries hated the US for bombing/burning/killing

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

In every war you enter, you need to consider......is the end result worth it?

Jeopardizing the lives of our military personnel for some political posturing is not worth it. Yes....they lie to us
They lie about the reason for being there, they lie about how many casualties, they lie about cost, they lie about duration
In fact, they will tell us any lie that will get them the war they are asking for

we did NOT '''stand aside'''
500,000 troops/etc
naval/air superiority
airfield construction
BILLION $$$$$
training
etc etc ---no--we did not stand aside
for the last time---SVs government was corrupt and worthless
no way we were going to win the war
I see you back up your points with ZERO links/evidence
while I provide evidence

I never claimed they weren’t

We lied over our reason for being there, we lied about the ability of S Vietnamese forces, we lied about our timeline for being there, lied about our exit strategy

Wrong war

 

[there4eyeM]

Actually we did in fact defeat the Chinese forces badly.

I'll have to get in touch with my high school history teacher. He told me that the Chinese fought us to a stalemate. Even though he was in that war, I guess that he did not realize that we had won.

Read. I didn't say we won the the Korean War (although there has never been an official end to that war, just a cease fire) I said we defeated the Chinese forces badly and that is true. They attacked our troops and gained not a damn thing except hundreds of thousands of dead Chinese.

50,000 Americans died

What did we gain?

What did we gain?

Honor credibility and retribution against enemies' sneak attacks against our troops. American blood was shed; you think we could retain any credibility by playing the sniveling coward and forswearing our commitment to an ally and running crying to our mommies? We stopped the spread of Communism as we were committed to do.

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over
it didn't stop Castro
etc
I ask AGAIN!!--what effect did losing Nam, Cambodia, and Laos [ dominoes ] have on the US?
--many people and countries hated the US for bombing/burning/killing

Truth be known, the loss was certain as soon as they were considered 'ours' to lose.

 

[harmonica]

I'll have to get in touch with my high school history teacher. He told me that the Chinese fought us to a stalemate. Even though he was in that war, I guess that he did not realize that we had won.

Read. I didn't say we won the the Korean War (although there has never been an official end to that war, just a cease fire) I said we defeated the Chinese forces badly and that is true. They attacked our troops and gained not a damn thing except hundreds of thousands of dead Chinese.

50,000 Americans died

What did we gain?

What did we gain?

Honor credibility and retribution against enemies' sneak attacks against our troops. American blood was shed; you think we could retain any credibility by playing the sniveling coward and forswearing our commitment to an ally and running crying to our mommies? We stopped the spread of Communism as we were committed to do.

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over
it didn't stop Castro
etc
I ask AGAIN!!--what effect did losing Nam, Cambodia, and Laos [ dominoes ] have on the US?
--many people and countries hated the US for bombing/burning/killing

Truth be known, the loss was certain as soon as they were considered 'ours' to lose.

I have asked this on many forums:
...what what major, detrimental effect was there on the US when the communist took over?
..what detrimental effects would there have been on the US if we did not go to war in Nam?
the answers I have received:
ZERO

 

[harmonica]

Morely Safer knew something was ''wrong'' in 1965!!
at the 4:30 mark

if you read about Vietnam, some soldiers and Marines said the same thing

sorry--the big point in the Safer video is around the 4:20 mark also
he says this action was Vietnam in miniature...that American military might can win the military victory---but not the TOTAL, political victory---

Safer knew the outcome in 1965!!!!!!!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and Nixon ran on the statement that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam war. Years later, in the David Frost interviews, he admitted that he did not have any such plan.

 

[rightwinger]

Morely Safer knew something was ''wrong'' in 1965!!
at the 4:30 mark

if you read about Vietnam, some soldiers and Marines said the same thing

sorry--the big point in the Safer video is around the 4:20 mark also
he says this action was Vietnam in miniature...that American military might can win the military victory---but not the TOTAL, political victory---

Safer knew the outcome in 1965!!!!!!!!

It was Walter Crionkite who ultimately stuck a dagger in it

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Inchon was a stroke of luck.

A bold move by a tactical genius is more accurate...........anyhow....as someone once said.....better to be lucky than good.

The Inchon landing was opposed as being too risky by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....but MacArthur's decision(it too extreme courage)to land there demonstrated once again his tactical genius. Not to forget...................During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur developed the strategy of island hopping. He would capture certain islands. The Americans would use those islands to get closer to their goal. He would leave Japanese troops to starve on the other islands. He would not waste American lives trying to capture those islands. The objective was to get close enough to Japan to establish bomber bases capable of dropping bombs on Japan. Brilliant strategy.


The MacArthur Revival | RealClearDefense

Mac only started the island hopping AFTER he screwed it up at Buna-Gona
so--he isn't the great intelligent general you think

there were a number of valuable but costly lessons in the conduct of jungle warfare.

Allied losses in the battle were at a rate higher than that experienced at Guadalcanal.

Historian Stanley Falk agreed, writing that "the Papuan campaign was one of the costliest Allied victories of the Pacific war in terms of casualties per troops committed.

Battle of Buna–Gona - Wikipedia
anybody can learn by trying something to see if it works
a lowly Lt could think of island hopping--especially after taking mucho casualties

Buna-Gona was a learning experience for MacArthur. I would however not characterize it as you have.

Casualties on both sides were high – the Allies buried 1,400 Japanese dead, while the Allies lost 620 dead, 2,065 wounded and 132 missing.

Buna, Gona and Sanananda were the first battles in which Allied solders attacked Japanese troops who had had time to dig in. At the start of the campaign the Australians and Americans lacked the heavy weapons that would prove to be essential in the jungle. Air support was not yet effective – only 121 sorties were flown, and after 22 December no more requests were made for close air support. During the campaign the Allies began to learn how to deal with the impressive bunkers that they would find across the Pacific. At the start of the campaign the Allies had not believed that tanks or heavy artillery would be useful in the jungle – by the end of it the campaign it had become clear that both weapons were essential when faced by strong Japanese defensive positions. The lessons learnt at high coast at Buna, Gona and Sanananda would be applied with increasing skill as the Allied advanced across the Pacific.

Warfare History Network » The Battle Of Buna: Costly For Both Allies and Japanese

 

[9thIDdoc]

...Korea was a win for the US in that the commies did not take over SK--but if you know any history, SK's government was much more stable than South Vietnam....in less than 2 years, SV had 3 changes in the head of state--and many more coups /attempted coups before and after--
one of the coups involved MURDER !!
...the US could not stay in SV forever....and if they invaded NV, they could not stay there forever [ but that wasn't going to happen ]..etc
...do you see what all this means?? Vietnam was unwinnable --totally ..there is no way they could've won in Nam

here's a comparison-contrast
tiny Israel:
very narrow battle front
surrounded by the Arabs--had to fight on more than one front!!
no retrograde movement because of the Med Sea
OUTNUMBERED immensely in all categories [troops/tanks/population/etc ]
the US sends NO troops/aircraft/naval/etc
yet Israel decisively defeated the Arabs
surrounded:

South Vietnam:
longer front and maneuver room
not massively outnumbered
the US sends 500,000 troops/etc
has naval and air superiority !!!
sends mucho $$$$/equipment/etc
for over TEN years the US tries to help SV--but there is no win/etc
NOT surrounded:

don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
we had air and naval superiority

do you see the difference?

...and, as stated before---the US is not going to win against China

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

we fought for over seven years....helped for over ten
gave SV air and naval superiority ......still a loss

hold it--you said with different ROEs, the outcome would have been different
you made the claim--it's up to you to prove it--not for me to disprove it
when prosecutors make a claim that someone is guilty, it's up to the claimers [ prosecutors, you, ] to prove the claim
...how idiotic =

And no proof we wouldn't have.

so we both have no proof on different ROEs!!!! so, your initial claim of that is without proof--YET, you claimed it!!!!!....then you claim I have no proof !!! hahahah ...idiotic
so your claim of different ROEs is a worthless claim

Cute, but stupid. Where exactly is there any proof of any of your numerous silly statements? I have stated my informed opinion that I believe to be true. That is the best we can do on a forum such as this. Those readers who have some actual knowledge of history need no further proof. Believe what you like; you will anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong. We didn't win in Korea because the war never ended and North Korea still exists.
We didn't win in Vietnam because our politicians never allowed the military to fight to win, Micro-managed the war, and was constantly coming up with idiotic ROE.

We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to......this is just a small deployment in a supporting role, we will mop it up by the end of the year

We lost 100,000 young men combined in the two wars......all for nothing

..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever
..they would've just started the civil war again when we left and kept up resistance with the US there [ like many countries have done with occupiers --which I will not list for there being so many

"We didn’t win because we didn’t want to endure the casualties it would take to win. In both cases we were lied to."

Again, simply untrue. There is nothing sane about the idiotic civilian fantasy that a nation should go to war without being willing to do whatever it takes to win that war even in the case of a non-optional war. Anything less dishonors the troops who sacrifice so much to accomplish the task at hand.

" ..even if we called up the reserves and invaded NVietnam [which would've been very stupid to do for a very insignificant civil war ] we could not stay in NV forever"

Again, untrue. The idea that Vietnam was a civil war was never anything other than blatantly obvious Communist propaganda especially after '68 when the VC (which was largely NVA in any case) was essentially wiped out. We long had the men and equipment necessary to win the war and only lacked civilian political approval. Final control of the war was in the hands of idiots with no slightest idea how one should be fought.

"...it was a win for the US to keep SK from being over run..our mission was not to move into North Korea!! here were the objectives":

And our missions were being assigned by clueless civilian idiots.

"...don't try to say the military had their hands tied--we bombed NV with more bombs than were used in WW2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"we had air and naval superiority

Yes, we had it and we were just not allowed to use it effectively.

"...and there is no proof that the war would've been won with different ROE
NV didn't have to Win to win--just not lose....like the American revolutionists"

And no proof we wouldn't have.
It was absolutely necessary for North Vietnam to launch a bloody imperialistic invasion to conquer South Vietnam in order to win. And-in the end-that is exactly what we stood aside and allowed them to do. Thanks so much to politicians and the left wing agenda.

we fought for over seven years....helped for over ten
gave SV air and naval superiority ......still a loss

hold it--you said with different ROEs, the outcome would have been different
you made the claim--it's up to you to prove it--not for me to disprove it
when prosecutors make a claim that someone is guilty, it's up to the claimers [ prosecutors, you, ] to prove the claim
...how idiotic =

And no proof we wouldn't have.

so we both have no proof on different ROEs!!!! so, your initial claim of that is without proof--YET, you claimed it!!!!!....then you claim I have no proof !!! hahahah ...idiotic
so your claim of different ROEs is a worthless claim

Cute, but stupid. Where exactly is there any proof of any of your numerous silly statements? I have stated my informed opinion that I believe to be true. That is the best we can do on a forum such as this. Those readers who have some actual knowledge of history need no further proof. Believe what you like; you will anyway.

Your proof is more emotion

 

[Vandalshandle]

Robert McNamara, on Vietnam:

The Fog of War - Wikipedia

"Robert McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam
From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam".[11]

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
6. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
7. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
8. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
9. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
10. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
11. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

These are slightly shortened versions of the text from page 321 to page 323 of his book."