The batttle for Chosin

[9thIDdoc]

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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

See post 120. It appears that the architect of the Vietnam war, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the era, disagrees with you.

 

[rightwinger]

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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over

We did in fact gain continued independence for our South Vietnamese ally. We stopped any take over for as long as we chose to.

 

[9thIDdoc]

..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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

See post 120. It appears that the architect of the Vietnam war, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the era, disagrees with you.

So? Pleased and proud that is mostly true. Does he not admit to his shortcomings with what you have quoted?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

See post 120. It appears that the architect of the Vietnam war, Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the era, disagrees with you.

So? Pleased and proud that is mostly true. Does he not admit to his shortcomings with what you have quoted?

The same shortcomings that we still had when we went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. The same shortcomings that we have by maintaining the ridiculous ban of dealings with Cuba. This country is bound and determined to kick ass just because we have the technology to do it, and then wonder why we are universally hated in the Middle East, and much of Latin America. Our foreign policy has been wrong since the 1950's, and to make it worse, we now have Trump, with no foreign policy at all, except bullying our allies.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is no doubt MacArthur was wrong in his analysis of what China might do....and not only MacArthur but his staff (including intelligence officers) simply had little respect for the military capabilities of china....referring to them as laundrymen....their perspective on China was based largely on China's military performance in WWII which was very poor.

But also...........one must consider all the limitations placed on MacArthur by Truman i.e. refusing to let our AirForce go beyond the Yalu River and knock out China's ability to invade N.Korea etc.etc. basically the whole fallacious and disastrous policy of 'limited war' was begun by the Truman Administration and a pc communist ridden state Dept. which was a huge, huge security leak as in they were thoroughly penetrated by Russian Intelligence agents.


General Douglas MacArthur Defends His Conduct in the War in Korea | Teaching American History

...the US did not want a war with China--that would've been really stupid---we couldn't beat tiny North Vietnam...you don't want to go dropping A bombs for nothing--especially for a civil war....you can't beat China--too big--too many people
...most wars are ''limited''

my father fought at the Chosin
temps down to 30 below [ not wind chill ]...snowy, icy. hilly terrrain
after fighting for 2 days, with little sleep, they went ''cross-country'' in those temps to save Fox Company around 2 Dec

however, so what if the North took over?...North Vietnam took over the South
the communists took over Laos and Cambodia, and Cuba--no big deal

Not a good line of reasoning....anyhow what was your father's thoughts on the Korean stalemate?

sure--go to war with China--that's a good line of reasoning??!
my father never talked about the political side of it

No one wants to go to war but as Dick Cheney recently said China is now America's greatest threat.

Cheney on Threats to U.S.: ‘I Think the Chinese Long-term Are the Most Serious, ...’

Evolutionary Duty

Islam is far worse. The major powers should unite and wipe the Third World savages off the face of the earth.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Weak?

Who the hell wanted to get into another war less than five years after we fought WWII?

War mongers don’t care if we lose more soldiers......the American people did

Who wants to give their son for S Korea?

You do not get it and way too many are on your side....not understanding that strength deters war whilst weakness invites it.

That bullshit has gotten tens of millions needlessly killed

Weak?

Who the hell wanted to get into another war less than five years after we fought WWII?

War mongers don’t care if we lose more soldiers......the American people did

Who wants to give their son for S Korea?

You do not get it and way too many are on your side....not understanding that strength deters war whilst weakness invites it.

That bullshit has gotten tens of millions needlessly killed

You should check your stats before you spout off................American War Deaths Throughout History

I didn’t say just the US

WWI and WWII got 50 million people killed

If the allies has been stronger they could have stopped the Nazis before they even got started....again...another product of American weakness and Isolationism. Even one good intelligence agent could have gotten rid of Hitler...it was not like he was hiding what his goals were.

Not Required Reading

They appeased Hitler because he was the enemy of Communism and because his ideology wasn't that much different from what the other ruling classes believed in.

 

[there4eyeM]

Politicians sold out American values by becoming so foolishly involved in Vietnam, Korea, Iran and so many other situations.
Vietnam was a catastrophe of misunderstanding on all sides. No one gained except 'defense' producers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Bullshit. We did not lose in any of those places. And you might bother to notice that we won the Cold War.

..
..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.

again: most wars do not end it total victory
again:
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:

aid the democratic nation in repulsing an invasion by communist North Korea.

to enforce a United Nations resolution calling for an end to hostilities, and to stem the spread of communism in Asia.

“immediate cessation of hostilities” and the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel.

and the biggie:::!!

President Truman announced to the nation and the world that America would intervene in the Korean conflict in order to prevent the conquest of an independent nation by communism

Truman orders U.S. forces to Korea - Jun 27, 1950 - HISTORY.com
mission accomplished....
Truman did not want to spread the conflict--he did not want to go into NK if China would get involved

“would be wrong—tragically wrong—for us to take the initiative in extending the war… Our aim is to avoid the spread of the conflict.

Truman relieves MacArthur of duties in Korea - Apr 11, 1951 - HISTORY.com
this is a win
China wins by keeping the UN/US out of NK
SK wins for staying independent
NK loses by not taking over NK

the US/etc kicked ASS in PG1....totally beat the Iraq forces--but by your definition it was not a win because it ended in a cease fire

Israel beat the Arabs ASS in the Six Day War...totally beat the Arab forces
Israel conquered and kept MORE land than they had before the war!!
--but by your definition Israel didn't win, because it ended in a cease fire
so, Israel didn't win the Six Day War???

Because of Its Piracy, Ancient Albania Was Permanently Reduced to Practically Nothing

If an invader is driven back, it must lose territory. It must be permanently disabled or it will invade again. You're contradicting yourself if you don't apply your weak retaliation in Korea to Israel's gaining territory after the Six-Day War. This was also applied to Carthage.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

That incident was no different from the mass killing of civilians by our bombers in World War II. There are no non-combatants in a combat zone. By harboring Viet Cong, the "civilians" were getting American men killed. Unpatriotic American sissies who ran away to college dominate the narratives you foolishly parrot.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The Boat People Were Chickenhawks

The South Vietnamese who weren't collaborators were cowards and crooks. They were what prevented us from winning; they deserve everything the Communists later did to them. The unrealistic pose of saving such a worthless people should have been replaced with us alone against the Communists; any native interfering with that would be killed. They would have quickly learned to stand aside and let us make the Communists give up all of Vietnam because their continuance there would have been hopeless.

 

[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

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

That incident was no different from the mass killing of civilians by our bombers in World War II. There are no non-combatants in a combat zone. By harboring Viet Cong, the "civilians" were getting American men killed. Unpatriotic American sissies who ran away to college dominate the narratives you foolishly parrot.

we could never win in Vietnam--forget it ----I've linked and stated the many reasons why

 

[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

we gained nothing
because in Vietnam it didn't stop the communist from trying to [ and did ] take over

We did in fact gain continued independence for our South Vietnamese ally. We stopped any take over for as long as we chose to.

so we lost anyway--with 50,000 Americans dead and many more Vietnamese dead for ----nothing....all those dead---for nothing
all the dead and mutilated.....families broken up....homes lost....etc etc

 

[harmonica]

you people are in fairytale land if you think the US could've won in Vietnam

 

[harmonica]

..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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

if you read about Vietnam, the NVA were very good
I'm re-reading Operation Buffalo about one of the worst ambushes USMC Vietnam
my wife's uncle died there with B 1-9 2nd platoon-the worst hit unit..nearly wiped out
1-9 was called the Walking Dead

 

[rightwinger]

"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

We most certainly did stand aside while the USSR and China continued to back the North Vietnamese Communists.
We sold out the South Vietnamese. We withdrew our troops, we promised then failed to provide air support while they were being overrun and congress stopped providing supplies and funds while the Communist countries continued to provide North Vietnam with their every whim. Hard to defend yourself when you're out of ammo. We betrayed our ally and all of our own and friendly troops who sacrificed so much there.
All governments lie about matters related to war. Being too truthful simply hands big advantages over to the enemy. Loose lips sink ships. Duh.

The South Vietnamese sold out us
We provided training, the best equipment in the world, a massive military force, air superiority, a navy and 60,000 American lives

They still lost to an inferior North Vietnamese Force who actually gave a shit

if you read about Vietnam, the NVA were very good
I'm re-reading Operation Buffalo about one of the worst ambushes USMC Vietnam
my wife's uncle died there with B 1-9 2nd platoon-the worst hit unit..nearly wiped out
1-9 was called the Walking Dead

The NVA gave a shit, they were fighting for their country, fighting for Ho Chi Minh. They fought with very little but still held their own against superior forces

Our strategy was always to turn over the fighting to S Vietnam
They were corrupt and never had the heart

 

[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

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

ok--fine...but add the really stupid crap Mac did in the Philippines and Korea--it all adds up

 

[9thIDdoc]

Many of the NVA actually fought because the government would kill their family if they didn't.

 

[rightwinger]

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

ok--fine...but add the really stupid crap Mac did in the Philippines and Korea--it all adds up

Truman wanted MacArthur to stay below the 38 th parallel. He warned about the risk of the Chinese entering the conflict. MacArthur laughed him off. MacArthur knew best

His invasion of the north was a disaster. He ignored reports of Chinese infiltration and laughed off their fighting ability

His arrogance cost us 50,000 lives