Vietnam War was unwinnable

[elektra]

..what were we going to flatten?? a bunch of grass huts? they were getting a lot of their weapons from China and Russia
woooooohooooo

Equating Germany to Vietnam is your mistake. I am pointing that out. Grass Huts? That is kind of a bigoted stereotype of Vietnam. Again showing that you know nothing of the country you started an OP on.

I am still waiting for you to explain your comments on France? Did you get to that? It seems you have not. You should really take a couple of hours, weeks would be better, and get an education on Vietnam.

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table. Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February. Intensified the attack in May. By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose. The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win. You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy. You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football. Can you ever win a game of football without offense? Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war. We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what? The enemy to all commit suicide? Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at TOTAL war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?

Are you kidding? China didn't barely have jack. In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war. It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960. The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army. The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people. And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%. That's insane. And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time. To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over. China could not have stopped us. Not even come close. Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us. If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.

No it's a fact. That's just a fact. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example. The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base. So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed. And that was due to left-wingers. No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.

FDR was a Dem

hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
....BEFORE the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
'''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
= do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN

 

[rightwinger]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table. Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February. Intensified the attack in May. By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose. The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win. You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy. You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football. Can you ever win a game of football without offense? Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war. We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what? The enemy to all commit suicide? Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at TOTAL war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?

Are you kidding? China didn't barely have jack. In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war. It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960. The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army. The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people. And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%. That's insane. And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time. To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over. China could not have stopped us. Not even come close. Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us. If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.

No it's a fact. That's just a fact. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example. The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base. So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed. And that was due to left-wingers. No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.

You don’t understand war, especially Vietnam. Your rhetoric reminds me of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished”:declaration. War is not merely capturing real estate

We had the most modern military in the world. But we were still subject to guerrilla tactics And the NVA attacks.

A “short easy war “ and we will be home by Christmas dragged on for a decade. 60,000 US deaths with no end in sight made us question why the hell we were there.

Even if we had “won” we would have still had to maintain peacekeeping forces that would be subject to endless attacks.
N Vietnam had the will to fight to the last man.....we did not.

 

[harmonica]

hahahhahahahah...ok
you STILL have not posted any proof = just babble

I do not need to prove my facts. It is your OP, your thread. You have babbled, as you call it, over and over. You are actually babbling to me. Proving you are a hypocrite, because you have not sourced nor linked nor offered anything counter to what I have stated. You are simply proving you have to run to google and try to pull your foot out of your mouth.

wrong--I posted many links/facts

 

[elektra]

..you people are thinking like it's a board game = unrealistically
..there are reactions to military actions--politically and militarily
..you are think one-dimensionally

Much of war is a board game. It seems the only person thinking, "one-dimensional". Speaking of the English Language. Are you sure you have a firm grasp on how you are expressing yourself.

 

[Andylusion]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table. Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February. Intensified the attack in May. By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose. The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win. You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy. You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football. Can you ever win a game of football without offense? Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war. We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what? The enemy to all commit suicide? Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at TOTAL war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?

Are you kidding? China didn't barely have jack. In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war. It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960. The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army. The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people. And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%. That's insane. And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time. To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over. China could not have stopped us. Not even come close. Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us. If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.

No it's a fact. That's just a fact. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example. The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base. So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed. And that was due to left-wingers. No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.

..so we finish the people off at the base? then what? how do we win?

..we finished off the base at Hamburger Hill--then we left!!! in a lot of battles we had a greater body count......

That's *MY* point.

You have to go defeat the enemy. You have to destroy the base, then move there, and take that ground. Then kill the next enemies, and move there, and take that ground. When you get to the capital, they surrender, and the war is over.

Honestly, if we pushed straight for Hanoi, and finished the war, you think the Chinese would send troops and material to an already defeated ally?

No, of course not. If North Vietnam had surrendered, the Chinese would have left.

we finished off the base at Hamburger Hill--then we left

Again... that is *MY* point. We killed the soldiers nearby, and then left.

You can't do that to win. You have to go defeat the enemy.

In football, do you just pay defense and stop the other team pushing the ball? No. After you stop them, then you grab the ball, and push it down to their side of the field, and run it into the end zone.

You have to go to Hanoi, and kill or threaten to kill their leaders, and force a surrender, or just flat out occupy the entire capital like Berlin.

You are making my point sir. That's my whole point. You have to win. You can't just attack a few soldiers, march around circles, hoping the enemy will just randomly commit suicide.

in a lot of battles we had a greater body count

Huh? I have not checked the individual body counts of each battle.

However, given the fact that the North Vietnamese lost almost a million troops, and we lost 58 thousand... I do find that highly unlikely.

 

[elektra]

wrong--I posted many links/facts

You posted no links nor facts that prove your opinion is fact. Wikipedia and the New York Times? That is what a person does when they do not know the subject at hand.

You posted no links nor facts showing your opinion about France is accurate.

You stated we should of learned a lesson from the powerful french. That statement shows you know absolutely nothing about France. It is the first statement I have challenged you on. I have challenged you on it, twice. This can be counted as the third time. You have no links and have posted no facts that change your opinion about France into fact.

 

[rightwinger]

f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

That is what Gen MacArthur said.
In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.

That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel. Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.

We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam

Which is only because they retreated. If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.

Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army. They were not hardly trained at all.

Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.

The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives

Allies remember Jipyeong-ri victory

With the battlefield silent for 60 years, and the fighting positions nearly overgrown by the country’s economic growth, Korean, American and French military leaders paid homage to the service members who fought in a key victory during the Korean War – the Battle of Jipyeong-ri (Chipyong-ni).

www.dvidshub.net

Surrounded on all sides, the Warrior Division’s 23rd Regimental Combat Team with an attached French Battalion was hemmed in by roughly 25,000 Chinese Communist Forces around Jipyeong-ri. United Nations Forces had previously retreated in the face of the CCF instead of getting cut off, but this time they stood and fought.

“A relatively small force of 5,600 allied soldiers of the 23rd Regimental Combat Team and a partnering French Army Battalion under the command of Col. Paul L. Freeman formed a defensive perimeter on this ground in February of 1951,” said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, the 2nd ID commander. “Jipyeong-ri was an important transportation and communication hub, and therefore very prominent on the list of enemy targets.”

U.N. Forces were outnumbered but fought hard, Tucker added.

“All told, the allies fought at odds of roughly 15 to one,” he said. “For two horrific, bloody, frigid nights, the American and French soldiers held against impossible odds.”
============================
So let's review:

25,000 Chinese
5,600 French and US troops.

We won.

Explains?

North Toward the Yalu River - Korean War Legacy

After UN forces successfully landed at Incheon and recaptured the besieged South Korean capital city of Seoul, U.S. President Harry Truman applauded General MacArthur’s “brilliant maneuver” and called the general’s campaign one of the best military operations in history. Syngman Rhee then...

koreanwarlegacy.org

The cocky general declared that UN troops would invade North Korea, defeat the communist forces, stop fighting by Thanksgiving, and return home in time for Christmas. Charles Ross recalled that his commanders told him and his fellow soldiers that the war’s end was in sight: “We had been told that the war was all but over, and we were going to do an Armistice Day parade for General MacArthur in Tokyo on November 11, 1950.

On November 24, MacArthur launched a massive offensive toward the Chinese border. Almost on cue, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops stormed across the Yalu River from the north, sending US and UN troops into frantic retreat. The scope of the invasion was breathtaking. Julius Becton Jr. recalled:

At about 8:00 p.m., the Chinese Communists attacked in massive force. [Video: Melvin Hill – Surviving the Attack by 300,000 Chinese was Luck] They swarmed over the hills, blowing bugles and horns, shaking rattles and other noisemakers, and shooting flares in the sky. They came on foot, firing rifles and burp guns, hurling grenades, and shouting and chanting shrilly. The total surprise of this awesome ground attack shocked and paralyzed most Americans and panicked not a few. [Julius W. Becton, Becton: Autobiography of a Soldier and Public Servant (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2017)]

 

[Andylusion]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table. Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February. Intensified the attack in May. By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose. The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win. You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy. You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football. Can you ever win a game of football without offense? Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war. We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what? The enemy to all commit suicide? Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at TOTAL war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?

Are you kidding? China didn't barely have jack. In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war. It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960. The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army. The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people. And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%. That's insane. And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time. To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over. China could not have stopped us. Not even come close. Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us. If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.

No it's a fact. That's just a fact. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example. The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base. So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed. And that was due to left-wingers. No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.

FDR was a Dem

hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
....BEFORE the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
'''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
= do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN

Yeah, FDR was. So was JFK, and LBJ.

And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.

Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions. If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.

If there *IS* peace there, then.... why are we going?

That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.

But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar. All in... or not in at all.

 

[harmonica]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table. Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February. Intensified the attack in May. By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose. The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win. You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy. You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football. Can you ever win a game of football without offense? Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war. We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what? The enemy to all commit suicide? Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at TOTAL war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?

Are you kidding? China didn't barely have jack. In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war. It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960. The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army. The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people. And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%. That's insane. And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time. To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over. China could not have stopped us. Not even come close. Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us. If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.

No it's a fact. That's just a fact. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example. The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base. So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed. And that was due to left-wingers. No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.

FDR was a Dem

hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
....BEFORE the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
'''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
= do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN

Yeah, FDR was. So was JFK, and LBJ.

And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.

Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions. If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.

If there *IS* peace there, then.... why are we going?

That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.

But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar. All in... or not in at all.

Nixon--a Republican--let Americans die for his own political gain--with Vietnam!:

When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election

It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.

www.politico.com

Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show (Published 2017)

Richard M. Nixon feared that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency.

www.nytimes.com

 

[elektra]

The only thing unwinnable, is harmonica's opinion he/she based this OP on.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

Great (but silly) imagination. Invasion is not an "offer". Conquered by force is not "self-determination". There was most certainly nothing brotherly about Ho Chi Minh or North Vietnam. They were azzhos who stole their own peoples' land and slaughtered them if they resisted giving up farms that had been in their families for generations.

South Vietnam:
''''' it was anti-democratic, autocratic, corrupt and nepotistic.''''

'''''The Agroville resettlements caused enormous social and economic disruption. Families were separated, shifted from familiar territory and forced to abandon important spiritual sites, such as temples and ancestral graves.'''''

'''''' Diem established an autocratic regime that was staffed at the highest levels by members of his own family.'''''
-----WORSE than communism

etc etc
AND the linkS!!! hahahhahahahaha--both links crosscheck each other

South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem

The Geneva Accords created North and South Vietnam as temporary states. In reality, both had already become separate national entities.

alphahistory.com

Ngo Dinh Diem | Facts, Vietnam War, Significance, & Death | Britannica

Ngo Dinh Diem, Vietnamese political leader who served as president of South Vietnam from 1955 until his assassination. He refused to carry out elections mandated by the Geneva Accords of 1954, ruled autocratically, and showed preference to fellow Roman Catholics in an overwhelmingly Buddhist...

www.britannica.com

Let's see-aside from the fact that this post does not have anything to do with the idea that the war was "unwinable" your links refute the contention that it was the US that made separate countries:
"In April 1954, diplomats from several nations – including the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and Great Britain – attended a conference in the Swiss city of Geneva. This led to the creation of the Geneva Accords, which outlined a roadmap for peace and reunification in Vietnam. "
" Both South Vietnam and its main benefactor, the United States, “acknowledged” the Accords but refused to sign them or commit to honouring their terms. The Viet Minh delegates did not wish to sign: they were sceptical about the scheduled 1956 elections and reluctant to agree to the 17th parallel border, which would mean surrendering territory to the South. In the end, the Viet Minh representatives signed on the instructions of Ho Chi Minh, who was himself under pressure from the Soviet Union and China."
"That the end envisioned by the 1954 accords (peace) proved elusive was not due to the means by which peace was to be attained. The fatal defect was to be found in the fact that the accords were not confirmed or assented to by all of the parties to the conflict. The US and the South are not bound by the Accords, since they not only refused to sign… or endorse orally the declaration but also stated affirmatively their opposition.”
Roger H. Hull, US lawyer
The Geneva Accords of 1954
And, no, that government was not worse than Communism and was not even the government under which the latter part of the war was fought.

 

[harmonica]

f the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

That is what Gen MacArthur said.
In a matter of about a month, his forces swept north of the 39 th parallel and chased the N Koreans all the way to the Yalu River.

That is when the Chinese forces came in and swarmed our unsuspecting forces and drove us back south of the 39th parallel. Ended up killing 50,000 American forces.

We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam

Which is only because they retreated. If you follow up on what happened after this, every time the UN forces stood their ground, and fought, they slaughtered the Chinese.

Especially the Chinese of army of the 1950s, was in fact a peasant army. They were not hardly trained at all.

Damn boy, are you ever ignorant of history.

The Chinese forces overwhelmed us. We ran for our lives

Allies remember Jipyeong-ri victory

With the battlefield silent for 60 years, and the fighting positions nearly overgrown by the country’s economic growth, Korean, American and French military leaders paid homage to the service members who fought in a key victory during the Korean War – the Battle of Jipyeong-ri (Chipyong-ni).

www.dvidshub.net

Surrounded on all sides, the Warrior Division’s 23rd Regimental Combat Team with an attached French Battalion was hemmed in by roughly 25,000 Chinese Communist Forces around Jipyeong-ri. United Nations Forces had previously retreated in the face of the CCF instead of getting cut off, but this time they stood and fought.

“A relatively small force of 5,600 allied soldiers of the 23rd Regimental Combat Team and a partnering French Army Battalion under the command of Col. Paul L. Freeman formed a defensive perimeter on this ground in February of 1951,” said Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, the 2nd ID commander. “Jipyeong-ri was an important transportation and communication hub, and therefore very prominent on the list of enemy targets.”

U.N. Forces were outnumbered but fought hard, Tucker added.

“All told, the allies fought at odds of roughly 15 to one,” he said. “For two horrific, bloody, frigid nights, the American and French soldiers held against impossible odds.”
============================
So let's review:

25,000 Chinese
5,600 French and US troops.

We won.

Explains?

North Toward the Yalu River - Korean War Legacy

After UN forces successfully landed at Incheon and recaptured the besieged South Korean capital city of Seoul, U.S. President Harry Truman applauded General MacArthur’s “brilliant maneuver” and called the general’s campaign one of the best military operations in history. Syngman Rhee then...

koreanwarlegacy.org

The cocky general declared that UN troops would invade North Korea, defeat the communist forces, stop fighting by Thanksgiving, and return home in time for Christmas. Charles Ross recalled that his commanders told him and his fellow soldiers that the war’s end was in sight: “We had been told that the war was all but over, and we were going to do an Armistice Day parade for General MacArthur in Tokyo on November 11, 1950.

On November 24, MacArthur launched a massive offensive toward the Chinese border. Almost on cue, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops stormed across the Yalu River from the north, sending US and UN troops into frantic retreat. The scope of the invasion was breathtaking. Julius Becton Jr. recalled:

At about 8:00 p.m., the Chinese Communists attacked in massive force. [Video: Melvin Hill – Surviving the Attack by 300,000 Chinese was Luck] They swarmed over the hills, blowing bugles and horns, shaking rattles and other noisemakers, and shooting flares in the sky. They came on foot, firing rifles and burp guns, hurling grenades, and shouting and chanting shrilly. The total surprise of this awesome ground attack shocked and paralyzed most Americans and panicked not a few. [Julius W. Becton, Becton: Autobiography of a Soldier and Public Servant (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2017)]

..it was one of the worst defeats in US history..I could go into great detail on Mac's screw up ..a big ego fk up......
..Victory Disease/ego/etc ......Almond also...weather/terrain/roads/intel/politics/etc...much to it - as I constantly say--it's not a board game--even generals are not perfect--like members here and other forums

 

[elektra]

..it was one of the worst defeats in US history..I could go into great detail on Mac's screw up ..a big ego fk up......
..Victory Disease/ego/etc ......Almond also...weather/terrain/roads/intel/politics/etc...much to it - as I constantly say--it's not a board game--even generals are not perfect--like members here and other forums

Still nothing to support your opinion of France's power and we were involved in Vietnam 7 years? Or did you mean 7 years and 3 days, cause as you point out, you stated, "over".

War, you keep stating it is not a board game? Yet, even today war is strategized on a board. With little figurines representing armies and tanks and such. They have even taken it further and computerized war. I think they actually call it, "war games". Either way, the Vietnam and Korean war were strategized on a board, like a game. You know nothing of war nor the history of Vietnam.

 

[9thIDdoc]

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever.....
..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their '''advantages'' ....this should've been a lesson
......a big problem was the Vietnamese government [ and military ] = for a long time it was corrupt/unstable/etc = they had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER..with many attempted coups before and after......that mess was still there after Thieu took over
...N Vietnam did not have to even beat the US ......
.......the US could cut off Korea because it was peninsula--where as NV could bring troops/etc to the South over land
.

Yes, and no.

Obviously if you put in place all of the restrictions on how to win the war.... then yes, you can't win the war.

It's like going into a boxing match, and saying

"You can't move from the spot you start on, and you can only hit back, if you have been hit yourself."

If you put those restrictions on yourself in a boxing match, you are going to lose the boxing match.

If the government had sent in the military in a completely unrestricted, full scale war on North Korea, we could have easily flattened and defeated North Korea in a matter of... maybe a month.

As soon as Nixon in 1972, ordered a theater wide unrestricted war on North Vietnam, the N.Vet came to the negotiating table. Nixon approved of the mass offensive in February. Intensified the attack in May. By October, the North Vietnamese were the ones asking for negotiations.

If we had done that in 1965, we would have ended the war.

There is not a single time, at any point in the entire Vietnam war, where enemy troops confronted US troops directly, and did not lose. The US military was better trained, better supplied, better equipped, had better air and ground support, artillery support, navel support, and so on.

Every time we confronted enemy troops, they folded... even when they out numbered US troops, and sometimes by a wide margin.

We could have gone straight to Hanoi, and won the war.

Instead we put restrictions on ourselves, that made it impossible to win. You can't win a war, by not attacking the enemy. You can't win a war, by only playing defense.

Think about it like Football. Can you ever win a game of football without offense? Can you ever win the game, without ever going on the other teams side of the field?

But that is exactly how we played the Vietnam war. We stayed on our side of the field, and marched around, expecting... what? The enemy to all commit suicide? Of course you can't win, without ever going at the enemy.

you--like a lot of people--think unrealistically and like it's a board game--this is a common problem with people--and you don't know history:
--so, to very easily refute your post---we go ''flatten North Korea and then we are at TOTAL war with China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..so Mr Genius--please tell me how do we defeat China?

Are you kidding? China didn't barely have jack. In fact, having read about this, China was begging Stalin to let them drop the Vietnam war. It was draining their resources, and killing them economically.

Remember China just had the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward in 1958 to 1960. The first half the 1960s of China was barely making a recovery.

And just by 1965, when things were almost at least back to where they were before the 1958 'leap to hell', then they engaged in the cultural revolution.

One of the idiotic things they did during the cultural revolution, was place all the factories and manufacturing plants, under the control of the revolutionary army. The managers and operators and knowledgeable people, were all replaced with military people. And unlike the US, these were not West Point trained officers, but rather just any idiot that was loyal to the communist party.

The people who knew how the factories worked, were sent to work the fields in the rural countryside.

In 1967 alone, production dropped 14%. That's insane. And keep in mind, China wasn't even a fraction as advanced as the US was, at that time. To lose 14% production in one year, when they didn't have that much production to begin with, was devastating.

And remember, in 1958, the entire Chinese arm was made up of peasants.

Again, if we had simply pushed to Hanoi in 1965, this would have been over. China could not have stopped us. Not even come close. Waves of peasants, would not have stopped fully supported US military advances.

And honestly, based on the huge critical issues throughout the China economy, they really would not have tried to stop us. If we had absolutely rolled in mass, towards Hanoi, they would have stepped back and let us go.

It is that arrogant dismissal of the capabilities of our adversaries that led to so many US deaths in Korea and Vietnam.

No it's a fact. That's just a fact. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example. The North Vietnamese specifically picked targets where there were few American Troops present, because they knew they would get slaughtered.

Not only that, but despite being a surprise attack, that focused on the least risky targets, it actually was a massive defeat for the North Vietnamese.

No, what killed our troops, was making it impossible for them to kill the enemy.

One particularly devastating story from a officer, was him recounting watching the enemy build a fire base to attack his base from, and not being allowed to call in an air strike, until they were actually being attacked, and men were actually dying.

Then after destroying the fire base, they wouldn't be allowed to go and finish off the people at the base. So they would watch them rebuild the base again, and still not be allowed to order an air strike, until once again they were being attacked and men were dying.

This is why our military personnel were killed. And that was due to left-wingers. No right-wing person believes that you can win a boxing match by not being allowed to move, and not being allowed to attack.

Left-wingers killed those troops.

FDR was a Dem

hooooowoowoowowoowowoooooooo--you fked up!
1. I am not liberal at all--I am American
2. I served in the USMC for 8 years..my dad was at the Chosin
3. in 1983, I remember hearing that the USMC was going into Beirut--for DEFENSIVE purposes only
....BEFORE the bombing that killed more Marines in a single attack than many, many other incidents, I thought:
'''this is not good...that place is a big mess ...this will not be good'''
= do you remember who the President was that did not let the USMC protect themselves was ???? a REPUBLICAN

Yeah, FDR was. So was JFK, and LBJ.

And yes I thought (in retrospect) that the Beirut mission was a bad idea.

Generally speaking, I'm against all "peace keeping" missions. If there is not peace there, then we need to be going as a military force, or not at all.

If there *IS* peace there, then.... why are we going?

That said, comparing one bomb, to an entire war, is Apples and Oranges.

But I do agree the concept is somewhat similar. All in... or not in at all.

Nixon--a Republican--let Americans die for his own political gain--with Vietnam!:

When a Candidate Conspired With a Foreign Power to Win An Election

It took decades to unravel Nixon’s sabotage of Vietnam peace talks. Now, the full story can be told.

www.politico.com

Nixon Tried to Spoil Johnson’s Vietnam Peace Talks in ’68, Notes Show (Published 2017)

Richard M. Nixon feared that progress toward ending the war would hurt his chances for the presidency.

www.nytimes.com

North Vietnam never intended the war to end through "peace talks" nor did it. If you want a sleezy politician who conspired with the enemy you can't beat John Kerry.

 

[elektra]

You didn’t answer his question.

What do you think total war would have achieved?

Total war, it would achieve an early win.

 

[elektra]

1st, the OP states that, that France should of been a lesson to the USA. A very ignorant thing to state. The OP further describes France as powerful.

After World War II France was powerful? After World War II France had a modern Air Force and Navy? The OP fails on its most basic assumption and opinion of France. That France was powerful after World War II.

France never had the military means to be effective in Vietnam after World War II.

As this is the OP's premise, it shows the very lack of education that harmonica has in regards to Vietnam.

 

[elektra]

Dien Bien Phu, just a cursory read of that battle shows the USA was involved in Vietnam far longer than the seven years harmonica has stated.

Substantial Military Aid, since at least 1953.
Landsdale and his Filipino counterinsurgency operatives were in and advising Vietnam in 1952. Or more specifiacally Ngo Dinh Diem.

Our involvement in Vietnam was over 30 years. Not simply "over 7 years", as harmonica stated.

 

[Camp]

Vietnam was a basic war of attrition. Each side tries to inflict as many casualties as possible on the opposing side. Eventually, soldiers are being drafted at larger and larger numbers. In America, everyone knew young boys serving in Vietnam and eventually everyone had some relationship with a kid who came home a casualty, in a box, or as a wounded forever individual. When people have visions and memories of real people who used to be your child's school mate, a daughter's boyfriend, the once paperboy, the kid who shoveled your sidewalk or cut your grass, or God forbid, your own child, or sibling, then, attrition for winning for your enemy is within reach. When casualties reach these numbers and saturation the population demands answers and talking point propaganda fails the test of believability.
Vietnam's communist leaders always had confidence they could win because they knew they could and would wear America down.
There's an old story of an N. Vietnamese teenage draftee that was snared out of his village one-day without warning, loaded on a truck, and dropped off at a trailhead of the Ho Chi Minh Trail with a mortar round and sent marching south with an order to deliver the mortar round.
For five months the draftee sacrificed and suffered through hunger, horrible weather, random bombings from American planes, more hunger, illness, biting insects, fear of snakes, coldness during rain and night during endless monsoons, seeing friends mutilated and killed, and all the horrors of war, when finally he came to a battle and was led to a group of soldiers firing mortars. A soldier took the precious mortar he had been carrying for five months and in seconds dropped the mortar down the mortar tube and sent it flying into the night sky. Shocked, the teenage draftee asked, "What should I do now?". The soldier who had sent the mortar round flying answered, "Go get another one".

 

[Camp]

Dien Bien Phu, just a cursory read of that battle shows the USA was involved in Vietnam far longer than the seven years harmonica has stated.

Substantial Military Aid, since at least 1953.
Landsdale and his Filipino counterinsurgency operatives were in and advising Vietnam in 1952. Or more specifiacally Ngo Dinh Diem.

Our involvement in Vietnam was over 30 years. Not simply "over 7 years", as harmonica stated.

Two American's were killed shortly after crashing after being hit by enemy fire while making a supply drop to Dien Bien Phu. Google Wallace Buford and James B. McGovern.