- Banned
- #361
..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 itThe French also lost 50,000 men trying to enforce their Colonial empire on Vietnam.plus giving the French 15 MILLION $ for their warFor crying out loudThe 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.Prove what I posted is wrong then or STFUThe 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.JFK was wrongBullspit. What part of: PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I do. With changes in policy and perhaps with personnel, I think it can. do you not understand?just like Morley Safer saidthe point???!!Not sure what point you think you are making. The interviews were in 1963 when we were advising; not fighting a war.....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.
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.
even the POTUS says the US can't win it for them--no matter what
BOOOOM baby
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.
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
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.
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
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
You are confused. But we did win. We stopped the Communists from taking over South Vietnam. That was the mission and it was accomplished when the Paris Peace Accords were signed where the filthy Communists acknowledged the existence of a non Communist South Vietnam.
However that was unacceptable to the filthy Democrats and when they defunded aid to South Vietnam that gave the green light to the Communists to undo the Peace Accords.
You can argue all you want that the US should have never been in the business of stopping the spread of Communism. Being a real Conservative and believing in non interventionism I will probably agree with you a lot more than I would disagree. However, the truth of the matter about Vietnam is that the Democrats made the decision to protect South Vietnam from Communism and it took a Republican Nixon to get actually achieve that objective. Then the stupid Democrats turned right around and gave it away with the Case Church Amendment in Congress.