Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
....so, we caused millions of deaths when we got involved--this is BETTER than if we hadn't have gotten involved?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.
please read the previous posts--even with unrestricted warfare, it was unwinnableVietnam 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.
....AND with unrestricted warfare, you might have the Chinese and Russians getting directly involved ---making it even MORE unwinnableVietnam 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.
Let's see from a 15 year old-IT DID NOT HAPPEN, so who cares? The point is we lost GOOD PEOPLE that I KNEW-winning was still losing-that's all. If you weren't there then you would not know.and then what happens??HanoiWhat would target have been for your nuke?In 1965, I said we should nuke them-that would have won the war-would it have?that's why the French and the US lost--because those wars were winnable !!!You have no idea what happened there or what you're talking about.
not 1 but TWO countries --much more powerful than North Vietnam
the NVs surrender?
Tens of millions are doing fine under CommunismVietnam 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.
We saw what happened in Korea when we invaded the northND
....AND with unrestricted warfare, you might have the Chinese and Russians getting directly involved ---making it even MORE unwinnableVietnam 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.
...you people and your IFs are ridiculous
IF, this IF that-----and I can counter all your IFs
Yeah, I saw the TV movieAssistant Sec. of State in 1961 George Ball regarding discussing sending US troops to Vietnam:
''within 5 years we'll have three hundred thousand men in the paddies and jungles and never find them. That was the French experience''
bold mine
What would you have considered a win?we left because it was unwinnableActually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.
View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.
You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.
A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.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.
I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Cronkite didn’t lose the war
The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
What I used to hear was, "kill them all to make them free".What would you have considered a win?we left because it was unwinnableActually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.
View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.
You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.
We used the same strategy in Korea. Charge in, storm up up to the Yalu River and they have no choice but to surrender. That MacArthur sure knew his military tactics. China came streaming across the borderWhat would you have considered a win?we left because it was unwinnableActually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.
View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.
You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.
At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
And yes, we could have done that. That war should have lasted less than a year.
OMGWhat would you have considered a win?we left because it was unwinnableActually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.
View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.
You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.
At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
And yes, we could have done that. That war should have lasted less than a year.
why would we be invading a country that never attacked the US?What would you have considered a win?we left because it was unwinnableActually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.
Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.
And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.
View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.
We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.
Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".
You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.
This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.
You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.
You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.
At the very start, we should have rolled straight into North Vietnam, destroyed their military, and forced their government to surrender.
And yes, we could have done that. That war should have lasted less than a year.
then why did the French lose??A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.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.
I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Cronkite didn’t lose the war
The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
If we had allowed our military to fight.................. it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him. So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam." Bull crap. We could have easily won. You just prevented the military from doing it.
Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win. But if you had not done that, we could have won.
500,000 menA North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.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.
I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.
Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands
Cronkite didn’t lose the war
The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war
If we had allowed our military to fight.................. it would have been an easy victory with minimal casualties.
The war hawks who promised victory, had Mike Tyson in his prime ready to fight against Pee-wee herman.
In an open fight, pee-wee herm would be knocked out in a single punch.
The problem is, the left-wing trash in our country, tied mike tysons hands behind his back, and blind folded him. So Pee-wee Herman was just beating him with the stick, and Tyson couldn't fight back.
Then stupid people say things like "The US couldn't win against North Vietnam." Bull crap. We could have easily won. You just prevented the military from doing it.
Yes if you directly prevent us from winning... then can't win. But if you had not done that, we could have won.
we WON it???!!!The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that. He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords. The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists. That was always the objective of the war.
All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost. They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
Once again the Democrats fucked everybody. Shame!
again--listen upThe Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that. He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords. The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists. That was always the objective of the war.
All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost. They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
Once again the Democrats fucked everybody. Shame!
....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....The Vietnam War was winnable because we did in fact win it.
That asshole LBJ mismanaged the war and got a lot of Americans needlessly killed but Nixon fixed that. He took the war to the North and forced them to sign the Paris Peace Accords. The agreement guaranteed that the South was going to be free from the Communists. That was always the objective of the war.
All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did the Koreans after the cease fire.
However, the filthy ass Democrats that controlled Congress hated the idea that the Communists lost. They voted to defund aid to South Vietnam and that was a green light for the Communists to invade.
Once again the Democrats fucked everybody. Shame!
