Vietnam War was unwinnable

[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
.

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

we did not win -plain and simple
...the ARVN were CRAP---you could've given them all kind of ammo and it would not have made a difference
.....read about the Ap Bac battle for an example--the VC kicked their asses even though the ARVN had all the advantages
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
hahahahhahahaha
....the NVA were in Nam in 1965
AND we did lose the political/insurgency/etc war
here read post # 12..Morley Safer knew in 1965 we could win the military battles, but NOT the political/insurgency/etc
Vietnam War was unwinnable

 

[rightwinger]

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

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

 

[Pilot1]

We won every significant military engagement in Vietnam. They lost millions of soldiers to our 50K. Cronkite lost us the war POLITICALLY saying the U.S. couldn't win after Tet, which we ALSO WON.

So the Commie, biased, lying MEDIA again cost us even back then. Oh, and Russia, Russia, Russia was also a lie. So history repeats itself.

 

[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
.

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

You sound a lot like Baghdad Bob the way you are spinning the story

Those are FACTS dumbass. If we had not cut South Vietnam off from all military supplies and honored out agreement with them the North Never would have invaded. Look it up numb nuts. No spin at all after TeT there was no south Vietnamese insurgency we killed them all. After that all there were were North Vietnamese Regulars pretending to be insurgents Read Ho Chi Min some time they were simply AMAZED our press turned an out right victory into a defeat after TeT.

 

[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
.

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

 

[rightwinger]

We won every significant military engagement in Vietnam. They lost millions of soldiers to our 50K. Cronkite lost us the war POLITICALLY saying the U.S. couldn't win after Tet, which we ALSO WON.

So the Commie, biased, lying MEDIA again cost us even back then. Oh, and Russia, Russia, Russia was also a lie. So history repeats itself.

We killed millions and still could not win

Because they were willing to lose a million to regain their country
We were unwilling to lose 60,000 to support a corrupt, inept ally

 

[rightwinger]

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

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway

 

[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
.

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway

Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway

Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.

South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side

They still managed to lose

 

[rightwinger]

More revisionist history...

If only we had given S Vietnam more support, they could have WON

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually if one looks at the ACTUAL facts of the military objectives we DID win in Vietnam and if we had aided South Vietnam in 75 we would still have 2 Vietnam's. The GOAL of the US was to PREVENT an insurgency from taking over South Vietnam. South Vietnam never fell to insurgency they were invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese Troops and the Democrats refused to sell South Vietnam parts materials or ammo to fight the INVASION. South Vietnam was so stable the North had to INVADE to conquer them all aided and abetted by the Democrats in the US Congress.

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway

Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.

South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side

They still managed to lose

I guess you can not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More revisionist history...

If only we had given S Vietnam more support, they could have WON

READ the history your self DUMB ASS.

 

[Bleipriester]

I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.

They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.

The problem is the capitalist mindset. It is not we, it is them (the managers), who don´t give a shit about the country and the company. They care about the bonuses they get when thy fire another American or European. Our system is our enemy, it its own enemy. Searching for cheap labor, the result is a new superpower in the making.
Look, the Chinese have a new "white book", they have no imperialist ambitions, and they don´t have to. But don´t treat on them, that might fire back soon enough. The US can be lucky under Trump that China is currently struggling to provide enough food for its population. We have to accept the new situation, it is easier for us Europeans, granted. It means we have to go back to local markets and invest in domestic science to maintain independence from Chinese suppliers. The best thing is when Chinese suppliers supply China and western suppliers supply us.

 

[K9Buck]

I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.

They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.

The problem is the capitalist mindset. It is not we, it is them (the managers), who don´t give a shit about the country and the company. They care about the bonuses they get when thy fire another American or European. Our system is our enemy, it its own enemy. Searching for cheap labor, the result is a new superpower in the making.
Look, the Chinese have a new "white book", they have no imperialist ambitions, and they don´t have to. But don´t treat on them, that might fire back soon enough. The US can be lucky under Trump that China is currently struggling to provide enough food for its population. We have to accept the new situation, it is easier for us Europeans, granted. It means we have to go back to local markets and invest in domestic science to maintain Independence from Chinese suppliers. The best thing is when Chinese suppliers supply China and western suppliers supply us.

By law, western companies should be forbidden to trade with China and others.

 

[rightwinger]

South Vietnam folded like a cheap suit
We provided them with the best military equipment in the world for eight years and they still couldn’t defend themselves

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway

Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.

South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side

They still managed to lose

I guess you can not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.

We were allowed to withdraw our troops without being attacked
In no way does that infer victory

 

[rightwinger]

More revisionist history...

If only we had given S Vietnam more support, they could have WON

READ the history your self DUMB ASS.

S Vietnam was incapable of defeating northern troops
They demonstrated that fact for a decade

 

[Bleipriester]

I don´t have a problem with trade with them but with western products having to be transported to us. That´s not exactly trade. The result is that China will take over our markets after taking over our industry.

They are a corrupt, totalitarian regime and we are funding their war against freedom both in and out of their own nation.

The problem is the capitalist mindset. It is not we, it is them (the managers), who don´t give a shit about the country and the company. They care about the bonuses they get when thy fire another American or European. Our system is our enemy, it its own enemy. Searching for cheap labor, the result is a new superpower in the making.
Look, the Chinese have a new "white book", they have no imperialist ambitions, and they don´t have to. But don´t treat on them, that might fire back soon enough. The US can be lucky under Trump that China is currently struggling to provide enough food for its population. We have to accept the new situation, it is easier for us Europeans, granted. It means we have to go back to local markets and invest in domestic science to maintain Independence from Chinese suppliers. The best thing is when Chinese suppliers supply China and western suppliers supply us.

By law, western companies should be forbidden to trade with China and others.

This strategy of exclusion will only create an even larger opponent. There should be clear agreements on government level, how to treat each other.

 

[Manonthestreet]

..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
.

Wrong it was won when ya left.VC were wiped out. .

 

[K9Buck]

This strategy of exclusion will only create an even larger opponent.

So doing business with the Chinese and helping them to get rich is a better strategy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They fought superior odds for 1 month with NO supplies no equipment and no repair parts. Moron.

We should have just sent the equipment and parts directly to the North

They were going to take them anyway

Read the history you moron South Vietnam FOUGHT for a month against overwhelming odds with no resupply no ammo no parts and no fresh equipment. All because people LIKE you were in Congress and REFUSED to honor our treaty with South Vietnam. The democrats of the 70's are DIRECTLY responsible for the South falling just like Truman was responsible for China going Communist in the late 40's. The only communist nation you can blame republicans for is Cuba as Eisenhower supported Castro and Castro turned on us.

South Vietnam fought for eight years against an inferior foe with the worlds strongest military power on their side

They still managed to lose

I guess you can not read ACTUAL History we won in 1968. When we left in 72 the Country was stable and had no insurgency. We promised to send the ammo parts and supplies and to provide artillery naval and air support if North Vietnam invaded them. Which we did in 72 and stopped the North. In 75 we failed to support or provided agreed upon fire support when North Vietnam invaded again. All because the dem controlled congress REFUSED to live up to our treaty.

We were allowed to withdraw our troops without being attacked
In no way does that infer victory

LOL GOD you are AMAZINGLY IGNORANT of basic historical facts.