Vietnam War was unwinnable

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,478
Reaction score
35,568
Points
2,190
Vietnam was a Civil War that we turned into a Cold War.

Rather than allow Vietnam to work out its own conflict, we jumped in after France left and treated it like a colonial entity that answers to a foreign power.

The horror stories of what would happen if Communism took hold did not come to be true. The real horror was 20 years of war that killed millions and fractured America’s trust in their government.

Today, Vietnam is a stable country and active trading partner with the west. The economy is better than it was under colonial rule and under corrupt S Vietnamese control.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
Neither di
..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.
Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and no reason to have the willpower to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
--what reason is there to level the North?
2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
4. you don't give much [ none ] proof to back your claims
. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and no reason to have the willpower to

The reason is to win a war instead of wasting lives time and money playing around and then wimping out on orders from the politicians. If we must fight we should always fight to win.
2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
The mission was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist imperialism. So we defeat North Vietnam and make it part of South Vietnam and go home. Mission accomplished and happy ending
3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
You never heard of tactical nuclear weapons, daisy cutters, etc?
Maybe not the best option; but better than the one the politicians chose for us.

4. you don't give much [ none ] proof to back your claims
Neither did you. No, I offered opinion just as you did except that mine is much better informed
..you just fked up...you think in 1 dimensional terms...
1. once we go home--the shit starts again------!!!!!!
2. no--all my links/QUOTES/etc are in my thread ''Vietnam unwinnable'' which I posted--ahahahahhaha
3.nukes----idiocy--pure idiocy...how old are you? 15?
You manage to both dodge and beg the question without saying anything germane. Deflect much? I am 72, I was there and know whereof I speak. If you quote an opinion it is still just an opinion.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc to '''''communism'''--guess what????? do you know??? the US is OK!!!
..so what if they were communist'''?????

..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We never "lost" those places because we never had them to begin with. I thought you claimed you were in favor of the right of the people to choose their own government.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc to '''''communism'''--guess what????? do you know??? the US is OK!!!
..so what if they were communist'''?????

..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We never "lost" those places because we never had them to begin with. I thought you claimed you were in favor of the right of the people to choose their own government.
what?
..they all turned communist
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
More often than not the isolationist position is the better alternative to being the global police. Granted, at times it cannot be helped, but the war profiteers are too quick to beat their drums.
We turned what should have been considered a Civil War into a Cold War
..they were supposed to have elections and the US did not agree to that
Neither di
..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.
Untrue. If we were going to fight there we could and should have invaded the North or leveled it. That is how you finish a war. Win. But the politicians were terrified we might win and made rules that denied us any chance of winning. We might have won at almost any time if it had been allowed right up until those politicians had the ground combat units withdraw in '73.
1. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and no reason to have the willpower to level/invade/MASSIVE draft/$$$$/etc for a TOTAL war like WW2 against Japan
--what reason is there to level the North?
2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
4. you don't give much [ none ] proof to back your claims
. we were not going to level or TOTALLY invade the North
a. the North did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the US had no reason and no reason to have the willpower to

The reason is to win a war instead of wasting lives time and money playing around and then wimping out on orders from the politicians. If we must fight we should always fight to win.
2. so even if we invaded the North, we couldn't occupy it forever = we lose
The mission was to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnamese Communist imperialism. So we defeat North Vietnam and make it part of South Vietnam and go home. Mission accomplished and happy ending
3. give more specifics on scenarios how how we would ''level'' the North
You never heard of tactical nuclear weapons, daisy cutters, etc?
Maybe not the best option; but better than the one the politicians chose for us.

4. you don't give much [ none ] proof to back your claims
Neither did you. No, I offered opinion just as you did except that mine is much better informed
..you just fked up...you think in 1 dimensional terms...
1. once we go home--the shit starts again------!!!!!!
2. no--all my links/QUOTES/etc are in my thread ''Vietnam unwinnable'' which I posted--ahahahahhaha
3.nukes----idiocy--pure idiocy...how old are you? 15?
You manage to both dodge and beg the question without saying anything germane. Deflect much? I am 72, I was there and know whereof I speak. If you quote an opinion it is still just an opinion.
unwinnable ...France lost--with MUCHO $$$ help from the US...then the US put 500,000 there-for over 7 years....and ''lost''
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
lly
Meanwhile, Ho Chi Mihn had spent his whole life fighting foreign invaders... which made him a hero.
Right. Here is some little known history (in the U.S.) of HoChiMinh, how he was radicalized, and how he sought U.S. support after WWI and WWII: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
When given a choice, the US chose to support the Colonial Powers over the right of people to choose their government
You would prefer we supported and allowed Communist imperialism? We supported the right of the South Vietnamese people to choose their own government instead of being enslaved by the Communists.
..like I told Rightwinger--you don't even know history
..we lost Vietnam--AND Cambodia, AND Laos AND Cuba/etc etc to '''''communism'''--guess what????? do you know??? the US is OK!!!
..so what if they were communist'''?????

..I've got news for you----so is China and Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We never "lost" those places because we never had them to begin with. I thought you claimed you were in favor of the right of the people to choose their own government.
what?
..they all turned communist
No they were conquered by the invading North Vietnamese. Occupied and enslaved while we stood back and let it happen despite all our promises.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,478
Reaction score
35,568
Points
2,190
No they were conquered by the invading North Vietnamese. Occupied and enslaved while we stood back and let it happen despite all our promises.
We lost 60,000 soldiers and killed over two million Vietnamese over 25 years of war in order to stop the spread of Communism.

With the benefit of 45 years of hindsight, we see a Communist Vietnam that is in better shape than it was under Colonial French and US occupation

Was 25 years of war worth it?
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
icing on the cake-RIGHT THERE!!
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
the point???!!
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
BOOOOM baby
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
the point???!!
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
BOOOOM baby
just like Morley Safer said
 

wamose

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
4,979
Reaction score
3,123
Points
1,015
Location
Pennsylvania
The stupid war we were fighting all around the Middle East was also unwinnable. Thank God Trump is getting us out of there.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
the point???!!
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
BOOOOM baby
just like Morley Safer said
Bullspit. What part of: PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. do you not understand?

Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
The stupid war we were fighting all around the Middle East was also unwinnable. Thank God Trump is getting us out of there.
Actually we won in Iraq. Twice. Once again (as in Vietnam) the politicians had us fighting a "police action" since then to help fledgling governments get started. That never ends well.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,478
Reaction score
35,568
Points
2,190
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
the point???!!
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
BOOOOM baby
just like Morley Safer said
Bullspit. What part of: PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. do you not understand?

Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
JFK was wrong
The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed to fail.

LBJ did what JFK would have
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
....just found this in a book about various wars the US has fought--this is the icing on the cake:
PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Viet-Nam—against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.
From your link:

MR. CRONKITE. Do you think this Government has time to regain the support of the people?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. If it doesn't make those changes, I would think that the chances of winning it would not be very good.
the point???!!
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
BOOOOM baby
just like Morley Safer said
Bullspit. What part of: PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. do you not understand?

Ever the revisionist you are quoting interviews from before we were even at war in Vietnam. Who is making a claim that South Vietnam could win a war against North Vietnam and their USSR and ChiCom allies? Not I. Although they kicked their ass when they invaded in '74 they couldn't last once we had left and cut their supply line.
JFK was wrong
The situation in Vietnam changed for the worse when Diem was killed. Diem was corrupt and led an inept government but his death created a power vacuum
S Vietnam never had the respect of the people and was doomed to fail.
..SVietnam was messed up during and after Diem
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,532
Reaction score
10,905
Points
1,440
Location
Florida
The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.

Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.

We militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords. Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists. That was the objective all along.

All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.

However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment. One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.

That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.

The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats. The assholes fuck up everything they touch.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,746
Reaction score
1,145
Points
255
The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.

Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.

We militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords. Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists. That was the objective all along.

All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.

However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment. One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.

That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.

The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats. The assholes fuck up everything they touch.
Exactly
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
28,880
Reaction score
5,750
Points
290
The ignorance about the Vietnam War is amazing.

Stupid Moon Bats only know about the war what they saw in the movies and read on some idiotic Commie peace protester's placard.

We militarily won the war in that we got North Vietnam to agree to an independent South Vietnam with the Paris Peace Accords. Thanks to Nixion's relentless bombing of the Communists. That was the objective all along.

All we had to do was support South Vietnam like we did South Korea.

However, the Democrat scum, aided by a few weak Republicans, voted to defund South Vietnam in the infamous Case Church Budget Amendment. One of the most despicable things every passed by Congress.

That gave the the Communists the green light to invade and take over and that is exactly what they did.

The blood of the Killing Fields and the reeducation camps and all the Communists murders are on the hands of the Democrats. The assholes fuck up everything they touch.
that's why there is no South Vietnam ..hahahhahahahah
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top