Vietnam War was unwinnable

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
1,150
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.
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,854
Reaction score
35,880
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,602
Reaction score
11,155
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.
Exactly

I wasn't in the 9th Div but I did make my way down to the Delta a couple of times. That whole country sucked but that area down there sucked the most.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,602
Reaction score
11,155
Points
1,440
Location
Florida
....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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,854
Reaction score
35,880
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,182
Reaction score
9,123
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
....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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,854
Reaction score
35,880
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
1,150
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.
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.
Still quoting party propaganda? Truth is it wasn't just the US that called for separation nor was it just the US that ditched the idea of a vote. North Vietnam had no interest in, and would not have allowed, an honest vote. Trying to have one would just have resulted in a bloodbath. North Vietnam had people in place to assure that. The South Vietnamese people had no interest in a vote either.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,182
Reaction score
9,123
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
....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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable
Stupid you certainly ARE, the FACTS are that in 1974 while our treaty was still in force North Vietnam attacked the South and the South BEAT them with out OUR troops just with air and artillery and supplies as provided BY a BINDING FUCKING TREATY. After November when the dems took over Congress they stripped the support ILLEGALLY and President Ford did NOTHING about it. Then in April 75 the North attacked again and when the US did NOTHING they launched an all out INVASION with 25 Divisions. The South had only 12 Divisions. And we were not sending ammo parts or supplies. The South DID NOT fall to an insurgency, the Insurgency was defeated in the Tet offensive in 68. The South Vietnamese Government was stable and successful. The NORTH INVADED get that through that fat thick head of yours. The South Vietnamese FOUGHT for an entire month out numbered over 2 to one and with out adequate supplies parts ammo or fuel. Because your BUDDIES the democrats reneged on a solemn TREATY. The South NEVER asked for our TROOPS in 74 or 75 fuckstain. They just wanted what we PROMISED we would give them and the dems REFUSED.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
1,150
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

I wasn't in the 9th Div but I did make my way down to the Delta a couple of times. That whole country sucked but that area down there sucked the most.
Won't get any argument from me. Who were you with?
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,749
Reaction score
1,150
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.
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable
Stupid you certainly ARE, the FACTS are that in 1974 while our treaty was still in force North Vietnam attacked the South and the South BEAT them with out OUR troops just with air and artillery and supplies as provided BY a BINDING FUCKING TREATY. After November when the dems took over Congress they stripped the support ILLEGALLY and President Ford did NOTHING about it. Then in April 75 the North attacked again and when the US did NOTHING they launched an all out INVASION with 25 Divisions. The South had only 12 Divisions. And we were not sending ammo parts or supplies. The South DID NOT fall to an insurgency, the Insurgency was defeated in the Tet offensive in 68. The South Vietnamese Government was stable and successful. The NORTH INVADED get that through that fat thick head of yours. The South Vietnamese FOUGHT for an entire month out numbered over 2 to one and with out adequate supplies parts ammo or fuel. Because your BUDDIES the democrats reneged on a solemn TREATY. The South NEVER asked for our TROOPS in 74 or 75 fuckstain. They just wanted what we PROMISED we would give them and the dems REFUSED.
Absolute truth.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,602
Reaction score
11,155
Points
1,440
Location
Florida
....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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable

You fucking moron. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.

Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,602
Reaction score
11,155
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.
Exactly

I wasn't in the 9th Div but I did make my way down to the Delta a couple of times. That whole country sucked but that area down there sucked the most.
Won't get any argument from me. Who were you with?

I was over there from November 1967 until March 1970. I was with several different detachments but on my uniform I have hanging up in the closet I have the Americal patch.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,854
Reaction score
35,880
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable

You fucking moron. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.

Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
Nice deflection and I notice the lack of details.

It amazes me in the degree that some continue the fantasy of.....we could have won if we only fought a little harder and a little longer.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
29,165
Reaction score
5,935
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.

LBJ did what JFK would have
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable
plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
29,165
Reaction score
5,935
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.

LBJ did what JFK would have
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable

You fucking moron. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.

Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
so that's your proof?? good thing you are not a lawyer
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,854
Reaction score
35,880
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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable
plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.

The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
29,165
Reaction score
5,935
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.

LBJ did what JFK would have
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable
plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their war
The French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.

The US claims to have fought for the forces of freedom and liberation during WWII. But when given the choice of supporting an independent Vietnam or Frances Colonial ambitions, we chose France
..jesus christ--how dense can they be? First the POWERFUL French '''lose''', then the US.....how about Russia and the Brits go in there and if they ''lost'', they would still say it was winnable ..it's like putting your hand in the fire and keep doing it
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
37,602
Reaction score
11,155
Points
1,440
Location
Florida
....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
The people much preferred their situation with the government they had to the one in North Vietnam as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands that left everything they had to travel south to avoid becoming Part of North Vietnam. They again proved where their sympathies lay by fighting desperately against their North Vietnamese foes right to the end.
After the French were driven out, the US negotiated a split government with the understanding a vote would be conducted in five years for a united Vietnam.
When it became obvious that Ho Chi Minh would win, the US refused to allow the election.

You don't know jackshit about Vietnam Moon Bat so just shut the fuck up.
Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFU
The South Vietnamese were in a stable Government after 1971 when we pulled out. We promised to provide arms ammo and support if they were attacked which we did in 1974 and the North backed off. Then the democrats being the slime balls and fuckwads they are withdrew all support breaking a TREATY we had signed. Even with out support South Vietnam held out for 30 days against an army twice their size. While the democrats sat by and LAUGHED it up. We had won in South Vietnam there was no insurgency anymore. They fell to an INVASION of 25 Divisions.
For crying out loud

We propped up their corrupt and inept Government for twenty years. We invested billions in their defense and 60,000 US lives. You still claim we did not do enough.

More false history that if we just supported them a little longer this thing would be winnable.

It was never winnable

You fucking moron. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing you know about Vietnam is what have seen in movies and what you have seen with your degree from The University of Google.

Just shut the fuck up and leave this discussion to the adults.
Nice deflection and I notice the lack of details.

It amazes me in the degree that some continue the fantasy of.....we could have won if we only fought a little harder and a little longer.

You simply don't know jackshit about you are talking about.

Watching movies about Vietnam and reading what is written on placards at an antiwar rally doesn't give you the knowledge you need to articulate intelligibly on the subject.

You don't have the basic understanding of history to say anything intelligible. You uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about History as you do Economics, Climate Science, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top