Vietnam War was unwinnable

[RetiredGySgt]

A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?

What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.

But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.

vietnam_war_truth

In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was independent and stable. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to

sites.google.com

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.

hahahhahahahahahha
jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
''easily annihilated'' ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY

You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.

even smart bombs would not do it......the NVA had been dealing with superior US airpower for YEARS---and you think it's going to stop them???!!!!

In 1972 the North launched an Invasion of the South and with NO US TROOPS in combat roles the South with US air Power STOPPED THEM.

 

[harmonica]

By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.

......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.

......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!

Look you fucking RETARD in 1972 the North also invaded the South and LOST with NO US troops in combat roles. Only US air Power and the South Vietnamese Troops. We had a BINDING TREATY with South Vietnam that your buddies the democrats refused to honor. Further in 74 the same traitorous democrats cut the supply line to the South Vietnamese Army.

 

[Dayton3]

A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?

What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.

But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.

vietnam_war_truth

In January 1973, America forced Communist North Vietnam to sign a ceasefire agreement, after bringing the Hanoi regime to the verge of collapse with Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. South Vietnam was independent and stable. But soon Congress, firmly controlled by the Democrats, began to

sites.google.com

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.

hahahhahahahahahha
jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
''easily annihilated'' ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY

You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.

even smart bombs would not do it......the NVA had been dealing with superior US airpower for YEARS

Not successfully.

 

[whitehall]

Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.

..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed

"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.

Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War. They later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.

WW2 casualties (justifiably) included every person in uniform whether they died by accident or in training or by disease. It's insulting to ignore the Sailors who were killed in accidents on Aircraft Carriers or lost at sea during the conflict or the Marines and Soldiers who died in training or by accident because (mostly) democrats want to keep the numbers down to protect the Truman legacy.

 

[Dayton3]

Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.

..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed

"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.

Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War. They later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.

WW2 casualties (justifiably) included every person in uniform whether they died by accident or in training or by disease. It's insulting to ignore the Sailors who were killed in accidents on Aircraft Carriers or lost at sea during the conflict or the Marines and Soldiers who died in training or by accident because (mostly) democrats want to keep the numbers down to protect the Truman legacy.

That's because World War Two was a world war, and the entire U.S. military was the size it was and training the way it was due to that war.

But its foolish to suggest that the thousands of American servicemen who died in Western Europe during the time of the Korean War are "casualties of the Korean War".

Mainly the reason the totals were "pumped up" for the Korean War was to make it nearly as deadly as the Vietnam War. So the people who fought in the Korean War could say "We lost nearly as many as were killed in the Vietnam War and in only three years".

My dad was a Korean War veteran by the way.

 

[whitehall]

Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.

..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed

"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.

Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War. They later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.

WW2 casualties (justifiably) included every person in uniform whether they died by accident or in training or by disease. It's insulting to ignore the Sailors who were killed in accidents on Aircraft Carriers or lost at sea during the conflict or the Marines and Soldiers who died in training or by accident because (mostly) democrats want to keep the numbers down to protect the Truman legacy.

That's because World War Two was a world war, and the entire U.S. military was the size it was and training the way it was due to that war.

But its foolish to suggest that the thousands of American servicemen who died in Western Europe during the time of the Korean War are "casualties of the Korean War".

Mainly the reason the totals were "pumped up" for the Korean War was to make it nearly as deadly as the Vietnam War. So the people who fought in the Korean War could say "We lost nearly as many as were killed in the Vietnam War and in only three years".

My dad was a Korean War veteran by the way.

The "totals" weren't "pumped up". They were what they were before LBJ's war. If American G.I.'s were dying by the thousands in Western Europe during the Korean War surely the media would have covered it but they didn't. Atomic bomb experiments using American G.I.'s became popular in the early 50's but the media wasn't covering that either.

 

[Dayton3]

If American G.I.'s were dying by the thousands in Western Europe during the Korean War surely the media would have covered it

Why? During the Cold War, typically 3-5,000 American servicemen died in the peacetime military every year. Look it up if you doubt me.

 

[whitehall]

If American G.I.'s were dying by the thousands in Western Europe during the Korean War surely the media would have covered it

Why? During the Cold War, typically 3-5,000 American servicemen died in the peacetime military every year. Look it up if you doubt me.

Do the math. The original estimate of Korean War casualties was around 50,000 downgraded to 35,000. What happened to those 15,000 Americans in three years who were taken off the rolls? Surely 15,000 American deaths in the Military in three years should have been accounted for.

 

[mikegriffith1]

By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.

......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!

Why do you keep denying documented historical fact? Leaving aside all the other documentation, North Vietnamese memoirs and official documents tell us (1) that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army were both decimated after General Giap's disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive, (2) that Nixon's Linebacker II bombing campaign and mining of Haiphong Harbor in 1972 brought North Vietnam to her knees and forced her to sign the ceasefire agreement in January 1973, and (3) that North Vietnam's leaders decided to violate the ceasefire and invade because they believed that the American Democrats would prevent the president from intervening to save South Vietnam, which is exactly what happened.

It is unbelievable that the treasonous Democrats in Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment five months after the ceasefire was signed, giving North Vietnam a bright green light to invade. The Case-Church Amendment prohibited the president from intervening in Vietnam without first getting Congressional approval, which of course that treasonous Congress would never grant, and North Vietnam knew this.

 

[cnm]

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.

You mean they are a source of cheap labor? How did we win anything?

I could imagine the Vietnam vet grumbling about Vietnamese stuff in walmart when he can't find a good job, just like the WWII vets grumbled about Volkwagens and Toyotas in the 1970's... while watching American Plants close.

Here's a crazy idea... let's make sure when we "Win", it's a win for the working class, not the rich.

OK then. Next time we'll just nuke them.

We dropped more bombs on them than we did in WWII

Then it must have worked, seeing as how they're now a trading partner.

It cost millions of Vietnamese lives and 60,000 Americans to get what we could have gotten for nothing

It's far more complex than that.

No it isn't.

 

[harmonica]

By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.

......do you understand your previous post???!!..you said we stopped the insurgency !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhaah...the insurgency was FOR the North to take over the South....do you get it????
AND, this goes exactly back to my evidence = what JFK said about the US not being able to win it!!!!!

Why do you keep denying documented historical fact? Leaving aside all the other documentation, North Vietnamese memoirs and official documents tell us (1) that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army were both decimated after General Giap's disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive, (2) that Nixon's Linebacker II bombing campaign and mining of Haiphong Harbor in 1972 brought North Vietnam to her knees and forced her to sign the ceasefire agreement in January 1973, and (3) that North Vietnam's leaders decided to violate the ceasefire and invade because they believed that the American Democrats would prevent the president from intervening to save South Vietnam, which is exactly what happened.

It is unbelievable that the treasonous Democrats in Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment five months after the ceasefire was signed, giving North Vietnam a bright green light to invade. The Case-Church Amendment prohibited the president from intervening in Vietnam without first getting Congressional approval, which of course that treasonous Congress would never grant, and North Vietnam knew this.

Why do you keep denying documented historical fact?
....so we should continue the war for eternity??? because that's what you are saying
..so the Democrats made the French lose also?
JFK/etc said it--the US could not win the war for the South--plain and simple