Vietnam War was unwinnable

[Third Party]

hahahhahahahh
NO PROOF --as usual
I don't need to google anything
I've been reading and researching WW2 for over 40 years!!!!!!

....just like Japan stabbing the US in the back, Germany did the same to Russia = they are not giving up

SO, WHAT did you study, oh great field marshall?

And
soviethammer.blogspot.com/2016/07/to-save..

??? that sends me to a bunch of articles --MANY articles--some on NATO
????and it's not even a link--it's not highlighted ..I had to copy and past
!!???

THAT's why I don't link stuff-no good at it-enough there to get the drift. There are many stories we all have no one heard of-I read a lot of books as did you apparently.

but the Russians never stopped/never surrendered----that's a fact

True-"not one step back". I'm Ukrainian and some German, so I have an interesting interest.

 

[harmonica]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?

....read the OP again--we are NOT going to nuke them = reality
that is part of the unwinnable = we were not stabbed in the back/etc
we had no heart for the war
etc

OK, so, --you nuke it and then what?
again--Japan and Germany had MANY cities destroyed/burnt to hell--and they did NOT surrender...and they were much more industrious than NVietnam

 

[Third Party]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?

....read the OP again--we are NOT going to nuke them = reality
that is part of the unwinnable = we were not stabbed in the back/etc
we had no heart for the war
etc

OK, so, --you nuke it and then what?
again--Japan and Germany had MANY cities destroyed/burnt to hell--and they did NOT surrender...and they were much more industrious than NVietnam

For a 15 year old who lost a friend there, what do you think he would say? Try it-you won't like it.

 

[Camp]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?

What would target have been for your nuke?

 

[harmonica]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?

What would target have been for your nuke?

Hanoi--what else?

 

[Third Party]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?

What would target have been for your nuke?

Hanoi

 

[harmonica]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?

What would target have been for your nuke?

Hanoi

and then what happens??
the NVs surrender?

 

[Flash]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

You are confused . The US did not lose.

The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination. That was a victory.

The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.

Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.

 

[harmonica]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

You are confused . The US did not lose.

The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination. That was a victory.

The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.

Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.

..yes--loss --the objective was to keep South Vietnam--
there was no SVietnam starting in 1975
Korean War was a win--there is still a South Korea
hahahhahahahahahah
then why did the French lose?? they didn't have the US congress involved
the North got the US out of SV--that was what they wanted--game over

you people don't get it.....the North was never going to NOT attack the South

 

[rightwinger]

We used body count as a way to declare victory

They were willing to die for their country
We were unwilling to die for someone else’s country

You're a ******* cartoon.

How so?

What did I say that you disagree with?

 

[rightwinger]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

You are confused . The US did not lose.

The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination. That was a victory.

The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.

Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.

We supported an inept and corrupt South for eight years and they were unable to win WITH us carrying the bulk of the combat load

What makes you think they could have done it without us doing the fighting

 

[harmonica]

......the American people were not going to ALLOW the US to stay indefinitely and have indefinite Americans killed = even AMERICANS were fighting AGAINST the war
...do you see the difference between the war against Japan and the Vietnam War??
...if your heart is not in it--forget it

 

[harmonica]

mg you are putting out bullshit --maybe you believe it because you want to
they were NOT surrendering--per my book quotes
they TOYED with the US during the negotiations--per the book quotes---etc
General Vo Nguyen Giap on the Vietnam War

You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.

that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam

You are confused . The US did not lose.

The objectives of the conflict were met when the Communists signed the Paris Peace Accords that gave the South the right to exist without Communist domination. That was a victory.

The Communists were able to achieve domination of the South when the Democrat control Congress voted not to continue support for the South, giving the Communists the green light to undo the agreement.

Another great example of the stupidity of the Democrats.

We supported an inept and corrupt South for eight years and they were unable to win WITH us carrying the bulk of the combat load

What makes you think they could have done it without us doing the fighting

..I've pointed this out before....
in the OP--the SV leadership was crap....this is a huge point
the ARVN was crap

 

[harmonica]

so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?

 

[Camp]

so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?

All our American POW's are annihilated, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed, populated areas in the north are scattered and dispersed into the countryside, Russia and China increase aid to N. Vietnam tenfold.

 

[harmonica]

so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?

All our American POW's are annihilated, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed, populated areas in the north are scattered and dispersed into the countryside, Russia and China increase aid to N. Vietnam tenfold.

....not to mention the US would be vilified/etc by the world--more so than after the conventional bombings where we were vilified
then the NVs would be even more determined

 

[rightwinger]

so they nuke Hanoi--then what happens?

All our American POW's are annihilated, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed, populated areas in the north are scattered and dispersed into the countryside, Russia and China increase aid to N. Vietnam tenfold.

I prefer those who were not captured

 

[mikegriffith1]

Vietnam was never winnable.
The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.

I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.

And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.

 

[Camp]

......the American people were not going to ALLOW the US to stay indefinitely and have indefinite Americans killed = even AMERICANS were fighting AGAINST the war
...do you see the difference between the war against Japan and the Vietnam War??
...if your heart is not in it--forget it

American support for the war dropped dramatically in May 1969 after a battle called "Hamburger Hill". While only 46 US troops were reported KIA, over 400 were maimed and wounded. Only 32% of Americans supported the war after Hamburger Hill, in large part because American forces abandoned Hamburger Hill and Hill 937 (Hamburger Hill) and the surrounding area was returned to the NVA.

Hamburger Hill was a turning point because it showed the failure of American military strategy and the waste of American lives.

 

[Camp]

Vietnam was never winnable.
The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.

I guess you don't realize that the North Vietnamese were heavily backed by the Soviet Union with weapons and advisers and financial aid? We intervened in Vietnam to keep the whole country from falling into the Soviet orbit and to keep tens of millions of people from having to suffer under Communist tyranny.

And if liberal Democrats had not insisted on insane rules of engagement for our troops in Vietnam, our casualties would have been far fewer and, at the very least, South Vietnam would be another South Korea today.

Nixon became Commander in Chief in Jan. 1969. Obviously, you have a hatred of liberals and blame them for anything and everything, but seriously, Nixon was a conservative Republican.