Vietnam War was unwinnable

[RetiredGySgt]

..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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Only because we had to FEW troops in North Korea. The 1st Marine Division was surrounded by 7 Chinese Armies and when they fought their way back to the beach all 7 of those armies were ruined as fighting forces. The army was spread company and battalion strength along the Chinese Border and the Chines hit those companies with divisions. The Only reason we never retook North Korea was because a POLITICAL decision was made NOT to.

 

[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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and

 

[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.

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.

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.

 

[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.

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.

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
3.invading against defense takes more casualties
4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

 

[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.

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.

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.

.....it's the SAME thing as Afghanistan --when we leave, the same shit goes on

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 soldiers

We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam

Wasn't a mistake in Korea and wouldn't have been a mistake in Vietnam. Both N. Korea and China got their asses thoroughly kicked in Korea and I doubt very much that China would have wanted more of the same in Vietnam. Even North Vietnam defeated a Chinese invasion not too long after we left.

 

[elektra]

..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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
View attachment 362501

I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.

You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?

Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.

It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.

Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.

 

[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 soldiers

We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam

Wasn't a mistake in Korea and wouldn't have been a mistake in Vietnam. Both N. Korea and China got their asses thoroughly kicked in Korea and I doubt very much that China would have wanted more of the same in Vietnam. Even North Vietnam defeated a Chinese invasion not too long after we left.

......what planet are you on? China kicked our a$$es --Twice in the initial stages...then it was stalemate
..they kicked a whole CORPS off the peninsula

The result was a disaster

It was by far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century

etc etc

Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea | Brookings

The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

www.brookings.edu

Chinese counterattacks in Korea change nature of war

In some of the fiercest fighting of the Korean War, thousands of communist Chinese troops launch massive counterattacks against U.S. and Republic of Korea (ROK)

www.history.com

 

[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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
View attachment 362501

I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.

You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?

Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.

It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.

Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.

you're babbling

 

[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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
View attachment 362501

I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.

You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?

Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.

It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.

Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.

It was by far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century

 

[Mr Natural]

It was by far a stupid fucking waste of life.

 

[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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
View attachment 362501

I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.

You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?

Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.

It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.

Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.

the US ''won''
China ''won''
SKorea ''won'
NKorea lost

US kept South Korea --which was the objective
China kept the US off their border/away from the Chosin= their objective
SKorea kept from being overrun
North Korea did not achieve it's objective

 

[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.

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.

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
3.invading against defense takes more casualties
4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN.
What N. Vietnam? There would be no North Vietnam. Vietnam would be united under the South Vietnamese government and we could leave. Not that difficult a concept.

3.invading against defense takes more casualties

Not as many as sitting around year after allowing the enemy to decide when where and how to attack.

4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure

More like the Nazis taking France.

5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!

Yes, actually I do. Unlike you I was there and paying attention and after returning home I did lots of research tying to figure WTF just happened. After '68 we had more than enough of everything to do the job. All that was lacking were politicians with a spine.

you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

I played that game for real. Real blood. Real pain and death.
Try talking that shit when you've had some real experience.

 

[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.

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.

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
3.invading against defense takes more casualties
4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN.
What N. Vietnam? There would be no North Vietnam. Vietnam would be united under the South Vietnamese government and we could leave. Not that difficult a concept.

3.invading against defense takes more casualties

Not as many as sitting around year after allowing the enemy to decide when where and how to attack.

4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure

More like the Nazis taking France.

5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!

Yes, actually I do. Unlike you I was there and paying attention and after returning home I did lots of research tying to figure WTF just happened. After '68 we had more than enough of everything to do the job. All that was lacking were politicians with a spine.

you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

I played that game for real. Real blood. Real pain and death.
Try talking that shit when you've had some real experience.View attachment 362510

......so we are going to ''deport'' [hahahahhaah] all the North Vietnamese from the North ????? and send them--where????!!!!!!
..they will still be there and we won't--then they continue on

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 soldiers

We wanted to avoid the same mistake in Vietnam

Wasn't a mistake in Korea and wouldn't have been a mistake in Vietnam. Both N. Korea and China got their asses thoroughly kicked in Korea and I doubt very much that China would have wanted more of the same in Vietnam. Even North Vietnam defeated a Chinese invasion not too long after we left.

......what planet are you on? China kicked our a$$es --Twice in the initial stages...then it was stalemate
..they kicked a whole CORPS off the peninsula

The result was a disaster

It was by far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century

etc etc

Catastrophe on the Yalu: America’s intelligence failure in Korea | Brookings

The United States has been in conflict with North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. For decades, it has been a top American intelligence priority to gather information and analysis on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

www.brookings.edu

Chinese counterattacks in Korea change nature of war

In some of the fiercest fighting of the Korean War, thousands of communist Chinese troops launch massive counterattacks against U.S. and Republic of Korea (ROK)

www.history.com

View attachment 362505

Korean war casualty statistics

Country	KIA+	Wounded
S Korea	227,800	717,100
US	54,229	103,248
UK	710	2,278
Turkey	717	2,246

US Troops Statistics
Source: Dept. of Defense
US Deaths:
Hostile: 33,739
Non-Hostile: 2,835
Total In-Theatre: 36,574
US Wounded in Action - 103,284
Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing)
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea - (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea - (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China - (600,000 military)
The statistics speak for themselves

 

[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.

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.

No, no reason for a Peacekeeping force. Invade North Vietnam. Overrun it to unify Vietnam. Place Vietnam under the government already in the South. Go home. Fighting a drawn out war was the solution idiotic politicians came up with.

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN
3.invading against defense takes more casualties
4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure
5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!
6. so China will just let us over run NVietnam?????!!!!!! NO!!...now you have a WORSE situation
holy freakin moly!!!!! you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

1. after we leave the same thing goes on
2. who is going to stop NVietnam after we leave? certainly not the ARVN.
What N. Vietnam? There would be no North Vietnam. Vietnam would be united under the South Vietnamese government and we could leave. Not that difficult a concept.

3.invading against defense takes more casualties

Not as many as sitting around year after allowing the enemy to decide when where and how to attack.

4. it will be like Napoleon taking Moscow = failure

More like the Nazis taking France.

5. we are going to make it a TOTAL war???!! do you know how much more $$$/equipment/troops/etc that would take??? -NO you don't !!!!

Yes, actually I do. Unlike you I was there and paying attention and after returning home I did lots of research tying to figure WTF just happened. After '68 we had more than enough of everything to do the job. All that was lacking were politicians with a spine.

you are playing wargames on a tabletop---not REAL!!

I played that game for real. Real blood. Real pain and death.
Try talking that shit when you've had some real experience.View attachment 362510

......so we are going to ''deport'' [hahahahhaah] all the North Vietnamese from the North ????? and send them--where????!!!!!!
..they will still be there and we won't--then they continue on

Try getting an intelligent adult to read my posts. I am tiered of repeating myself.

 

[elektra]

It was by far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century

You concede, the premise of your OP is wrong. You can not offer one answer to the errors you have made.

Debacle? That is your opinion, and as you have proven you are unable to substantiate your opinion.

 

[harmonica]

It was by far the worst military debacle the U.S. armed forces suffered in the entire twentieth century

You concede, the premise of your OP is wrong. You can not offer one answer to the errors you have made.

Debacle? That is your opinion, and as you have proven you are unable to substantiate your opinion.

hahhahahhahaha
..you people have't provided ANY evidence to refute it except your babbling
..I won this long ago...JFK's quote was the icing on the cake

 

[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?

In 1950? We had nukes they didn't we had a modern army they didn't. The threat was never China it was Soviets. We could have wiped the floor with China if we had just sent enough troops and been willing to enter China.

But we were not wanting a war with China and China didn't want a war with us the Soviets pressured China into that war and the Soviets not the Chinese supported North Korea at that time NOT China.

Now if Mc Arther had kept his mouth shut and not made the statements he made we probably wouldn't have had to fight China. Truman should have fire Mac as soon as he started spouting off.

But Vietnam was different. We won the insurgency war in 1968 when North Vietnam initiated the Tet Offensive. We slaughtered the Viet Cong, after that there simply was NO Viet Cong they were all North Vietnam regulars smuggled in. But the Press started ranting about how we were losing and destroyed the moral at the home Front. Even North Vietnam admits they lost Tet and were finished, then OUR press got in the act and the North salvaged a political win. But by 72 South Vietnam was stable. They did NOT need US troops any more. They just needed artillery and air support. And our supplies ammo and parts.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. send troops to war in CHina!!!!!!!!!???????
2. do you know how big China is????????!!!!
3. 550,000,000 vs 150,000,000 !!!!!!!!!??????!!
4. like Germany thinking they could beat Russia:
a. Russia TOO big
b. Russia population much bigger
......MacArthur said the same thing in 1950 right before China gave us a big a$$ whooping ...they kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula
..Mac said our airpower would be decisive --it wasn't
we had trouble enough with Germany---- AND Russia was on our side!
you are out of your cotton picking mind if you think we could defeat China--and
View attachment 362501

I see you had time to read my posts and reply. You have chosen not to reply. That does mean you concede, that your premise is false. You know absolutely nothing about Vietnam and our involvement.

You are making the claim that China had 550,000 armed soldiers to combat the USA? You are going to claim that had we declared War on China and anybody who supplies them, the Soviet Union would of entered a war with the USA?

Seeing how you have no understanding of Vietnam it is very clear you have less of an understanding of China and the Soviet Union.

It is sad that we did not destroy the Communists after World War II. We had the ability. Our soldiers had the will. We had the equipment and the armed forces.

Unwinnable is the argument harmonica makes.

the US ''won''
China ''won''
SKorea ''won'
NKorea lost

US kept South Korea --which was the objective
China kept the US off their border/away from the Chosin= their objective
SKorea kept from being overrun
North Korea did not achieve it's objective

I'm sure those nations will be glad to know you've decided what their objectives were.