Vietnam War was unwinnable

[Flash]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

 

[harmonica]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

hahahahha
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today

 

[rightwinger]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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.

You keep saying that yet have nothing of substance to add

 

[rightwinger]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

We did not “win” as we never established what victory would be.

The Paris Peace accords was an opportunity to withdraw from Vietnam without being attacked in the process. Any delusions that S Vietnam would do just fine without our forces protecting them was just fantasy.

 

[harmonica]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

We did not “win” as we never established what victory would be.

The Paris Peace accords was an opportunity to withdraw from Vietnam without being attacked in the process. Any delusions that S Vietnam would do just fine without our forces protecting them was just fantasy.

..good call .....
...I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics

 

[rightwinger]

I think everyone would want a fair election....what ALL the Vietnamese wanted--and that was the FOREIGNERS out--- stop messing with their country and politics

If given a choice, why would the Vietnamese choose to align with the Communists over aligning with a Government allied with the Western Governments?

They saw what type of Vietnam the Western Governments wanted. The West treated Vietnamese as incapable of ruling themselves. They needed a big brother to watch over them. Attempts by Ho Chi Minh to set up a free Vietnamese Government were laughed off by the west.

Communism offered them a self determined Government with Vietnamese leaders

 

[Flash]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

hahahahha
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today

Thanks to the filthy Democrats

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks to the filthy Democrats

Thanks to a corrupt and thoroughly inept South Vietnamese Government.

Why wasn’t that Government supported by the people?

They were puppets of the West
They were Christians in a Buddhist country
They represented the rich and powerful
They were personally corrupt.
They appointed Generals based on political connections.

 

[harmonica]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

hahahahha
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today

Thanks to the filthy Democrats

the French Dems also?? hahahhahahahahaha

 

[9thIDdoc]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

Chump change compared to the billions Obama gave to terrorists and their supporters.

 

[harmonica]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

Chump change compared to the billions Obama gave to terrorists and their supporters.

..that's 143 MILLION in today's $$..and I'm a Trump supporter

 

[9thIDdoc]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

History is what it is. Coming up with revisionist propaganda doesn't change that. Why not mention the Japanese that we helped kick out? Why not note that France was occupied by the Germans? Or that North Vietnam occupied parts of Laos and Cambodia as well as now occupying South Vietnam?

 

[Flash]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

hahahahha
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today

Thanks to the filthy Democrats

the French Dems also?? hahahhahahahahaha

The French didn't pass the Case-Church Budget Amendment you moron.

 

[harmonica]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

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.

hahahahha
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today

Thanks to the filthy Democrats

the French Dems also?? hahahhahahahahaha

The French didn't pass the Case-Church Budget Amendment you moron.

and they lost.....

 

[harmonica]

....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.

Kennedy TV Interviews on Vietnam

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

History is what it is. Coming up with revisionist propaganda doesn't change that. Why not mention the Japanese that we helped kick out? Why not note that France was occupied by the Germans? Or that North Vietnam occupied parts of Laos and Cambodia as well as now occupying South Vietnam?

ok--that makes sense

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.

 

[harmonica]

..I finally got to go to the library Thursday because of C19/etc....so I got this book just for the heck of it:
Anatomy of Victory: Why the US triumphed in WW2, Fought a Stalemate in Korea, and Lost in Vietnam by John Caldwell
...to add to the already undeniable proof already posted, here is more:
Col. Harry Summers:
''''Our ...strategy of counterinsurgency blinded us to the fact that the guerrilla war was tactical and not strategic. ......to wear down superior U.S. military forces.......the effect was a failure to isolate the battlefield...''''

 

[harmonica]

For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.

hahhahahahahaha
....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
...the government was corrupt and the military also
...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
the government was crap = UNWINNABLE

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.

hahhahahahahaha
....the government WAS bad--3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with murder
...the SVN had enormous air support/etc from the US, and still lost
...the government was corrupt and the military also
...because the military and government WERE bad, the soldiers/units were not up to par
the government was crap = UNWINNABLE

Again you fucking loon the Invasion in 75 had NO us Involvement NONE NADA ZIP.

 

[harmonica]

For the umpteenth time South Vietnam did NOT fall to an insurrection, it did not fall because it's Government was bad and it did not fall to local rebellion, it was INVADED by 25 divisions of North Vietnamese Troops.

.....read a Bright Shining Lie by Vann
...at the battle of Ap Bac, the SVietnamese had ALL the advantages
troop strength
APCs
CHOPPERS!!!!!
---and still lost to the VC