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
.

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

.....most wars are not total wars = everything won't be used....
......yes, we should never have gone in there.....

 

[elektra]

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

It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!

George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

I was talking about civilians alleged to be American.
The anti-war movement was strongly pro-Communist, anti-American, and anti-soldier. I was stationed in San Francisco for over a year '68-'69 and I know whereof I speak. Flags of those actively engaged in killing our guys were waved in the faces of our troops and the US flag was defiled and burned. Young men many of whom had never been stationed outside the US were called "Baby Killer", spat on, cursed, assaulted and sometimes murdered. In addition the anti-war movement willingly and openly colluded with and served as a willing propaganda arm for N. Vietnam. For these reasons and many more members of the traitorous anti-war movement were almost universally hated by soldiers (even more so than the VC and NVA) drafted and enlisted alike.
No, few S.Vietnamese (if any) were pro-N.Vietnam largely because of the continuing campaign of torture rape and murder (including and especially children)conducted against S.Vietnamese civilians. Hue massacre ring any bells? The S. Vietnamese were very aware and appreciative of the boost in the economy Americans brought and not in favor of the bleak starvation the communists promised much less the murder and "reeducation" camps.
There actually were very few differences between the Korean and Vietnam wars. Both were started by Communist aggression and Imperialism (the Communists are at least as Imperialistic as anyone).

"As time went on, the draft ended, the millions of Vietnamese dead were forgotten,..."
Just as many fully deserved to be.

 

[elektra]

..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

Prove it.

 

[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

Prove it.

....after WW2, I know of NO wars where an invader has taken total control of that country, changed the country,etc......can you name some?
Korea, the US in Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, PG1 and 2, Arab-israeli-Wars, etc etc

 

[harmonica]

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

It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!

George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs

and he was RIGHT all the time!!!
hahahahahhahaha

 

[harmonica]

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

It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!

George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs

you can babble all day--but without proof it is still babble

 

[harmonica]

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

It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!

George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs

.....Morley Safer--also--- saw the writing on the wall ..I've linked his 1965 news clip

 

[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.

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

WTF is George Ball and (more importantly) why should anyone take his opinion as fact as you constantly do with all opinions you favor? Again opinion is not fact and you can't make it so.

 

[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.

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

"..they all said it....and we didn't win"
Neither of those assertions is true.

 

[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

"..they all said it....and we didn't win"
Neither of those assertions is true.

ok--hahahhahahahhahahahahhahah

 

[9thIDdoc]

..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

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

 

[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.

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

"..they all said it....and we didn't win"
Neither of those assertions is true.

ok--hahahhahahahhahahahahhahah

Glad you agree.

 

[elektra]

.....Morley Safer--also--- saw the writing on the wall ..I've linked his 1965 news clip

Who?

Yes, we all know that you use google as your brain and believe any card you pull off the top of the deck of a google search is a wild card that wins your hand.

Hardly a debate, just endless google searches shared as if they make you educated or smart.

Bernard Fall was by far, a whole lot more intelligent than Safer. He also spent a whole lot more time living in and studying Vietnam as a political scientist. Any real historian or even amateur reads Bernard Fall.

Yes, you have read google searches and can copy and paste. Did your monkey teach you that trick.

 

[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

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

after WW2, not many--if at all
1. so, you named a WHOLE 2 wars. WOW!! out of HUNDREDS
a. you are blind or cannot understand basic English--I said AFTER WW2
....I can name dozens where there was no takeover
2. Vietnam was a CIVIL war--not 2 countries ...no country invaded Vietnam except the US--and they did not win

 

[harmonica]

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

It is the fool who can not articulate an argument in his own words and only offers a link. So weak is your argument that you have to quote the Secretary of Agriculture? The Secretary of Agriculture!

George Ball was the Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs

.....no, we wouldn't want to include facts/evidence/etc--would we?..[ hahahhahah ] .you just want to babble

 

[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

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

.....hey----you just proved you don't know shit!!
......in WW2 it was GERMANY who started the war by INVADING Poland--and Germany Lost--so WW2 is evidence proving what I said!!
..like I said---there is not many examples of a country invading another and totally winning---and WW2 is an example
....France did surrender---but not unconditionally ---and Germany still lost--France was free again

 

[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

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

..Germany also invaded Russia---guess who lost??? Germany FYI

 

[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

"..it is very rare for a country to invade another and win a complete victory or change that country, etc ----history shows this"
Bullshit history is full of it. Take both world wars or even the Vietnam war itself. S. Vietnam remains changed considerably.

..Germany invaded Norway--and lost

 

[elektra]

you can babble all day--but without proof it is still babble

You quoted the Secretary of Agriculture. Had you actually made an intelligent argument that proves your opinion as fact, you would of re-quoted that argument. But you have not. You have simply proved your ignorance and stupidity.

Like claiming the French were powerful, and a lesson we should of learned from? As I pointed out, they were weak after World War II, relying on the USA for an Air Force that was critical to winning. Your ignorant response was babble. An idiot projects. You babble yet accuse everyone of doing what we all clearly see you doing.

How about your claim that our involvement in Vietnam was, 7 years? Not 8, 9, or 10, but 7? Over 7 but not over 20? How about I state our involvement goes back to 1845. What would you do? Call that babble or would you go to google scratching your head?

Have you proved anything? Certainly not, not based on any education you have on the subject of Vietnam that your articulate in your own words.

You simply act like a monkey, babbling, scratching your ass, asking for a banana and frantically chimping, screeching, flaying your arms wildly, like a monkey, who gets rewarded when they hit, "enter". Here is a treat for you, go ahead, get excited.