Vietnam War was unwinnable

[harmonica]

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!

....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....

You are confused Moon Bat. The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea. That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning. The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea. Go look it up. I shit you not.

.....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel

You are confused.

It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea. Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective. The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.

You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.

....you said we stopped the Chinese--hahahahhahahahaha--no we did not--they kicked our A$$--except for the Marines

 

[harmonica]

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!

....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....

You are confused Moon Bat. The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea. That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning. The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea. Go look it up. I shit you not.

NKoreans --------------------US forces Nov 1950--------Chinese attack

You are confused.

The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea. Go look it up. Nowadays there is a South Korea. Trust me.

....I put those pictures up so even you could understand--but apparently, you're a dumbass

 

[harmonica]

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.

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.

then why did the French lose??

France was a German conquest in WW II, for one, and in no position to fight against the Soviet Union; you keep trying to pretend the Soviets and Red China played no role, for some reason, which is why your analyses have no bearing at all on realities. You keep pretending that Ho had killed off the independent leaders of the Viet Minh and replaced them with hard line Communists; they were no more 'natives fighting colonial oppressors' than Pocahontas is a 'native American'.

.....you need to read the previous posts on how both the US and French wars were the SAME.....SAME = unwinnable...2 much more powerful countries defeated by ''peasants'''

 

[rightwinger]

....you obviously don't know your wars--China came in to help North Korea and gave the US an a$$ whipping....

You are confused Moon Bat. The US stopped two million screaming Chinamen and NORKs from taking over South Korea. That was the objective of American interventionism from the beginning. The US stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea. Go look it up. I shit you not.

.....the Chinese objective was to keep the US away from their border--not to take over South Korea....the US did not stop them
..the Chinese stopped the US and pushed them below the parallel

You are confused.

It was never the objective of the US to either attack China or take over North Korea. Only to preserve South Korea and we met that objective. The push into North Korea was never to conquer them, only to destroy their military to prevent them from taking over South Korea.

You dumbass Moon Bats are always ignorant in History just like you are in Economics, Climate Science, Ethics, the Constitution and Biology.

Dumbass MacArthur did not listen to Truman and charged towards the Yalu River.
China felt threatened and joined the war
Killed 50,000 Americans

Rubbish. Mao got in the war because Stalin pressured him into it; Stalin then got cold feet and bailed, leaving Mao holding the bag, and then Stalin shook Mao down and made him pay in gold for Soviet military equipment. So yes, you people are indeed Moon Bats.

Now you are just making shit up

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:

What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence

On "The Vietnam War"

The Vietnam War Revisited

 

[rightwinger]

Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:

What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence

On "The Vietnam War"

The Vietnam War Revisited

What is your point?

Make a point and say what supports your point

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:

What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence

On "The Vietnam War"

The Vietnam War Revisited

What is your point?

Make a point and say what supports your point

Uh, well, my point is that the articles debunk the myth that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, and they also respond to Ken Burns' 2017 documentary on the war. How much more clearly can I state things?

 

[basquebromance]

Today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when US soldiers raped and murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians and burned their homes.

Hugh Thompson and his flight crew stopped the massacre by blocking American soldiers and threatening to kill them, saving countless lives

Thompson was called a traitor by many senators and other folks, and got death threats

 

[basquebromance]

http://www.ridenhour.org/images/ron_writings_jesus_was.pdf

 

[mikegriffith1]

Today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when US soldiers raped and murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians and burned their homes.

Hugh Thompson and his flight crew stopped the massacre by blocking American soldiers and threatening to kill them, saving countless lives

Thompson was called a traitor by many senators and other folks, and got death threats.

The atrocities that our soldiers committed in Vietnam pale in comparison to the atrocities that the Vietnamese Communist forces committed. Most of our soldiers did not commit war crimes, but liberals smear our entire war effort based on the actions of a minority of our soldiers.

Why don't you guys ever talk about the atrocities that the Communists--i.e., the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese--committed during the Vietnam War? Why don't you talk about the horrors that Vietnam experienced after South Vietnam fell because the Democrats refused to honor our treaty obligation to provide air and logistical support to South Vietnam?

When you liberals talk about the Vietnam War, why does your first instinct seem to be to blame your own country and to ignore the far more serious sins of the Communists? If the Democrats had not traitorously abandoned South Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist and would be much like South Korea is today, not to mention that millions of Vietnamese would not have been killed, imprisoned, or forced to flee by the Communists.

 

[harmonica]

Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:

What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence

On "The Vietnam War"

The Vietnam War Revisited

that's why the US AND the French won....2 great power against tiny North Vietnam

 

[harmonica]

Today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai Massacre, when US soldiers raped and murdered 500 Vietnamese civilians and burned their homes.

Hugh Thompson and his flight crew stopped the massacre by blocking American soldiers and threatening to kill them, saving countless lives

Thompson was called a traitor by many senators and other folks, and got death threats.

The atrocities that our soldiers committed in Vietnam pale in comparison to the atrocities that the Vietnamese Communist forces committed. Most of our soldiers did not commit war crimes, but liberals smear our entire war effort based on the actions of a minority of our soldiers.

Why don't you guys ever talk about the atrocities that the Communists--i.e., the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese--committed during the Vietnam War? Why don't you talk about the horrors that Vietnam experienced after South Vietnam fell because the Democrats refused to honor our treaty obligation to provide air and logistical support to South Vietnam?

When you liberals talk about the Vietnam War, why does your first instinct seem to be to blame your own country and to ignore the far more serious sins of the Communists? If the Democrats had not traitorously abandoned South Vietnam, South Vietnam would still exist and would be much like South Korea is today, not to mention that millions of Vietnamese would not have been killed, imprisoned, or forced to flee by the Communists.

....I'm far from being liberal ---we talk about Americans because we are Americans
....no--- South Vietnam would not exist--the Dems did not abandon the French--how come they lost!!!!???
....the Dems put over 500,000 Americans into Nam--and BILLIONS of $$$$$$$
tanks/carriers/etc...built airfields/ports/etc

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports that the United States spent about $168 billion (worth around $950 billion in 2011 dollars)

https://thevietnamwar.info/how-much-vietnam-war-cost/

...and most of all--the US gave 50,000 American lives
we did NOT abandon SVietnam--that is IDIOCY

 

[harmonica]

Here are three good articles that debunk the lie that the Vietnam War was unwinnable--they are responses to Ken Burns' misleading, anti-American 2017 documentary on the war:

What Ken Burns Omits From The Vietnam War - Providence

On "The Vietnam War"

The Vietnam War Revisited

What is your point?

Make a point and say what supports your point

Uh, well, my point is that the articles debunk the myth that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, and they also respond to Ken Burns' 2017 documentary on the war. How much more clearly can I state things?

even Morley Safer said it in 1965--the war was unwinnable
......I've posted more than enough evidence---the most important are the similarities to the French......
BOTH nations lost

 

[miketx]

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?

 

[harmonica]

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?

then what? give me a scenario where we would win

 

[miketx]

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?

then what? give me a scenario where we would win

Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.

 

[harmonica]

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?

then what? give me a scenario where we would win

Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.

we had a legitimate reason to be at war with Germany and Japan
we did not have a reason to be at war with NVietnam
we DID not have restraints in WW2..we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany
most of Japan's cities were bombed to hell--and they still did not surrender
...and Japan and Germany were industrial nations

 

[miketx]

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?

then what? give me a scenario where we would win

Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.

we had a legitimate reason to be at war with Germany and Japan
we did not have a reason to be at war with NVietnam
we DID not have restraints in WW2..we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany
most of Japan's cities were bombed to hell--and they still did not surrender
...and Japan and Germany were industrial nations

That has nothing to do with the topic, now does it?

 

[basquebromance]

"none of the 4 wars in my lifetime came about because America was too strong" - President Reagan

"the only land America took after WWII was to bury its dead" - Colin Powell

 

[harmonica]

How about if they had taken the restraints off our military?

then what? give me a scenario where we would win

Why? It's a pretty simple concept if you have to allow the enemy to shoot at you before you can engage them. I had several friends who were there and that was sop.

we had a legitimate reason to be at war with Germany and Japan
we did not have a reason to be at war with NVietnam
we DID not have restraints in WW2..we bombed the crap out of Japan and Germany
most of Japan's cities were bombed to hell--and they still did not surrender
...and Japan and Germany were industrial nations

That has nothing to do with the topic, now does it?

yes--it shows
1.bombing/conventional bombing usually will not win a war
2. countries will not surrender unless invaded
--if invaded, they have to be destroyed and/or the whole country occupied
etc