Vietnam War was unwinnable

[elektra]

[QUOTE="harmonica, post: 25077249, member: = unwinnable
[/QUOUTE]
......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd

It is your inept style of commenting that make it impossible to figure out what you are referring to. Try linking, quoting and commenting as well as making sure your links work. If you to lazy and stupid to do that your threads become jokes.

This thread seems popular and far from a joke. It's running since 31 August and has almost 600 comments. OP has made his points clear and concise. He seems to answer all questions thrown his way.
[/QUOTE]
started without links, I challenged his premise. He did not answer with links or a qoute. I looked through the entire thread. Not one fact that substantiated his comment/comments about france.

in recent post harmonica provided a link to support his comments about the Korean conflict. When I quoted from Harmonica's link he argued I was wrong unwittingly, arguing againt a link he stated was factual.

You have your opinion.

All i see is someone frantically. lazily. using a google search. Neither quoting or reading what is in the link.

Maybe you are responding in the wrong thread, harmonica here, cant even check to make sure his links work.

 

[9thIDdoc]

AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''

McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
BOOOOM BABY

Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.

I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.

..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara says it after......UNDENIABLE = unwinnable

As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

 

[Desperado]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

 

[Desperado]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

It wasn't a civil war. It was always about N.Vietnam aggression.
Rightly or wrongly we considered Communist Imperialism our business.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured

So who said there was anything funny about it? I would be about the last one to say such a thing. I was an Army medic there then and some of those 5800+ died while I fought to keep them alive.

 

[Desperado]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

It wasn't a civil war. It was always about N.Vietnam aggression.
Rightly or wrongly we considered Communist Imperialism our business.

no matter how you look at it, Vietnam was a major mistake that cost us blood and money and it was not worth one American life.

 

[Desperado]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured

So who said there was anything funny about it? I would be about the last one to say such a thing.

You did in the comment section of my post.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?

Are you talking about American civilians ... or Vietnamese?

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!” Others created organizations like “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” and the “GI Coffee House Movement,” which tried hard to reach out to, organize and defend GI resisters and conscientious objectors. The Anti-War Movement was NOT the enemy of drafted soldiers — the Military Industrial Complex and Establishment politicians of both parties were!

But the key factor in ending the war was Vietnamese civilians, North and South, who overwhelmingly wanted independence from French, Japanese and American imperialism, and who were patriotically willing to fight and even die for it. They, initially at least, had backing from both China and the USSR. They could not be broken.

General Giap had opposed the Tet Offensive initially. Vietnamese CP leader Le Duan and others had pushed it. It was no surprise Giap saw Tet as a military failure. He had often opposed premature attacks. He and all the hardened leaders of the Vietnamese struggle would never have been willing to surrender. Giap and the others recognized it as a military failure, but a long term political success.

The people of Vietnam would have overwhelmingly elected Ho Chi Minh back in 1955 if the promised elections were held. Even Eisenhower admitted as much. They suffered “strategic hamlet” concentration camps, the greatest bombing campaign in world history, and their organizations and will remained intact. Despite the billions of dollars in bribery corrupting all who could be corrupted, the money spent by 550,000 young soldiers spent freely in Saigon bars and back alleys, the National Liberation forces fought on.

Big strong U.S. soldiers were cycled through camps for a year or so and then left crippled, high, or as mental and emotional basket cases, never even learning to speak Vietnamese, confused and scared shit, some acting like macho killers, leaving behind a country poisoned by agent orange and unexploded bombs. The U.S. lost, deserved to lose, and never should have been there in the first place. We were there because our “statesmen” refused to see the immense differences between Korea and Vietnam, were locked into their Cold War obsessions, thought they could bomb their way to victory, and hadn’t the courage to admit their mistakes once committed.

But “Tricky Dick” and Kissinger succeeded in finessing the inevitable collapse of the South Vietnamese regime and turning it into a Democratic “stab in the back” — at the same time as they cozied up to Communist China! China invaded Vietnam in 1979 and together we supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge genocide was by then widely known, and had only at great expense been overthrown by the new unified government of Vietnam ...

As time went on, the draft ended, the millions of Vietnamese dead were forgotten, and MIA and “Stab In the Back” propaganda myths took hold, with “Rambo” movies stoking an imperial mindset and a revenge psychology. As if they had invaded us! Not a penny of reparations paid to Vietnam. Yet back in 1919, again in 1945, again in 1955, Ho Chi Minh had shown he was a nationalist who sought good relations with the West. Ho and many of those who followed him were always willing to deal with the U.S. — if we supported Vietnam’s National Liberation. Ho Chi Minh was another Tito in the making. Unlike the U.S. leaders, he knew his history. He feared China great power bullying, just as Tito learned to fear and stand up to Stalin. But the U.S. never listened. Never learned. And many American people, especially Trump fanatics, are even stupider and more arrogant today than we were then.

 

[Muhammed]

..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
.

I think some involvement to be a thorn in their side was a good idea. Like selling weapons to allies, sharing intelligence and training troops. However sending US soldiers into combat was a huge mistake. And LBJ enslaving American citizen to fight the war was just plain evil.

 

[Desperado]

The US should have been totally hands off Vietnam, no aid, military or otherwise. We have to learn to let other countries fight it out between themselves with no help from the US.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[QUOTE="harmonica, post: 25077249, member: = unwinnable
[/QUOUTE]
......you need your eyes checked--they are quoted and linked---you make yourself ridiculous and absurd

It is your inept style of commenting that make it impossible to figure out what you are referring to. Try linking, quoting and commenting as well as making sure your links work. If you to lazy and stupid to do that your threads become jokes.

This thread seems popular and far from a joke. It's running since 31 August and has almost 600 comments. OP has made his points clear and concise. He seems to answer all questions thrown his way.
[/QUOTE]
No actually he just claims his link proves something, then when a poster other then him uses HIS link to prove he is wrong he just claims they are lying or mistaken, IT IS HIS LINK, he provided it to supposedly support his position.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Not only would “marching on Hanoi” not have led to any surrender, not only would it have led to China entering the war, it would have led to an utterly impossible-to-maintain long-term occupation by U.S. troops of hostile occupied territories in Asia, requiring millions of soldiers and trillions of dollars. American society would have had more rebellions, student uprisings, constant chaos, with general strikes as the whole population awoke and revolted. In the army fragging of officers would increase exponentially into open mutinies among drafted soldiers, who were already utterly demoralized. Millions more innocent Vietnamese would be butchered. Russia would have won the Cold War. The U.S. would have committed suicide. It was wise for Nixon and Kissinger to have cut their losses. They had no choice.

As it was, of course the U.S. lost the war, but in a sense it did NOT lose, as Noam Chomsky pointed out. The CIA-abetted rightwing religious coup that massacred a half million leftists in 1965 in Indonesia already demonstrated the “dominos” were not falling in Asia as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand held firm and strengthened their alliances with the U.S. Rather, the USA had in Vietnam showed the whole world how far it would go, how dangerous it was, what bestial things it could do if challenged directly, dropping more ordinance on Indochina than on all its old imperialist competitors / enemies combined in WWII.

Bullspit. Surrender or die either way they would no longer be an enemy combatant.
There would have been no reason for a long term "occupation" unless we felt it was in our best interest. Seems to have worked out pretty well in S. Korea Germany and elsewhere. About the only thing wrong with the domino theory is that it was thought that N. Vietnam was a pawn of the USSR and China when in fact each had their own special Communism. Leftists also incorrectly thought S. Vietnam was a pawn of the US. South Vietnam was one of the dominoes that fell. The killing fields of Cambodia were another of the dominoes as well as the occupation of parts of Cambodia and Laos.
You aren't even very close in your comments about the troops in S.Vietnam. I was one of the them. When I was there in '70 there was indeed some demoralization but not with the cause you state. It was already common knowledge that the politicians weren't going to let us win the war and go home. Instead we were going to sit around playing target while our numbers became fewer and fewer resulting in a better and better target for the NVA. Nobody wants to be the last man killed in a war you are not allowed to win. Nobody wants to risk life and limb for no better reason than that the politicians and paper-pushers consider it expedient. Also who wants to die for a civilian population that openly despises you?
I do not accept the idea that we lost. We accomplished the mission we were given. The US Congress made our sacrifice and that of the South Vietnamese meaningless.

Why should the US even care about a civil war in Vietnam?
None of our business, but the Pentagon wanted to play with their new toys and make the military vendors rich

hey 9thIDdoc Nothing funny about it, cost the lives of over 40,000 military personal not to mention those that were injured

So who said there was anything funny about it? I would be about the last one to say such a thing.

You did in the comment section of my post.

Didn't say the war was funny. I indicated your comment is funny. Because it is.

 

[harmonica]

AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''

McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
BOOOOM BABY

Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.

I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.

..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara says it after......UNDENIABLE = unwinnable

As you have been shown JFK didn't say it. Don't know about McNamara (not going to subscribe to NY Times) but even if either or both had said it it would have still just have amounted to one man's opinion at a specific point in time (opinions change). UNDENIABLE=you know nothing and just enjoy spouting Communist propaganda for the attention it gets you.

BOOOOOMMM--AGAIN George Ball ALSO said it was UNWINNABLE
JFK, McNamara and Ball!!!!!!!!!! BOOOM and BOOOOOOM

'''''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.” Ball advised that the United States not commit any more troops, restrict the combat role of those already in place, and seek to negotiate a way out of the war.''''''''

“It was an unwinnable war”

''''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–and that we still would not win.

“It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training

adst.org

..they all said it....and we didn't win

 

[harmonica]

AND McNamara!!!!!!! JFK and McNamara!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.'''''''' Convinced that the war was unwinnable,'''''''''''

McNamara Recalls, and Regrets, Vietnam (Published 1995)

www.nytimes.com

..and you STILL deny it???????!!!!!!!!!
BOOOOM BABY

Another link you have not read. The Vietnam war is not the descriptive of a google search. If you care to actually use a link, you should quote the link with commentary. Or provide enough of a quote that the quote itself answers a premise you put forth.

I do not see that you have done that even once throughout your thread.

..so JFK says it before we were totally involved--then McNamara says it after......UNDENIABLE = unwinnable

Bull. JFK was wrong, and McNamara was wrong.

Again, there was not a single example where our troops in force, met their troops in force, and we didn't completely slaughter them.

You are just wrong.

AND George Ball????????!!!!!!-------you people keep putting your feet in your mouths---
AND George Ball???!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahahahhahahahaha:

“It was an unwinnable war”

''''''''. No one can assure you that we can beat the Viet Cong, or even force them to the conference table on our terms, no matter how many hundred thousand white, foreign (U.S.) troops we deploy.”

''''''But each one was addressed at some particular proposal for escalation, challenging the proposal and arguing that we were losing the war, that it was an unwinnable war, that the whole objective was an unattainable objective, that we could commit any number of–500,000 I think was the figure I used at one point in a memorandum–and that we still would not win.''''''

they are ALL wrong???!!!! jahahhahahahahh--and we didn't win!!!!!!

“It was an Unwinnable War” – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training

adst.org

 

[harmonica]

...you people are babbling while I provide UNSTOPPABLE, SHOCKING [ to you ] undeniable, etc evidence

 

[harmonica]

..like the OP says, we are not going into the North, etc......the Republicans could've been in charge--they are not going into the North, etc......
..we could've gone into the North and still no win

..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this

 

[esalla]

..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
.

If you aren't going to use your real weapons, then stay home

 

[harmonica]

George Ball--the icing on top of the icing