Vietnam War was unwinnable

[harmonica]

.....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.

...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum

 

[elektra]

...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum

This aint an Adult Forum. They have rules to protect the children that actually post here as well. And who is Morley Safer? A war studies researcher? Was he a political scientist? Was he a Secretary of War? Tell us, who you are relying on to make the argument you can not? Go ahead, tell us.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”

9thIDdoc —

I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the history of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.

The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.

There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.

 

[elektra]

..the US was involved with Vietnam for over 7 years!!!!!

The U.S. Marines landed in Da Nang in 1845. Your idea that our involvement was 7 years is woefully short. I would say your comment is pure ignorance. One of many comments you made that shows you never learned or educated yourself on Vietnam.

It has been fun showing you to be a monkey in a cage of ignorance. I may stop by from time to time to rub your nose in .......... Bad monkey, bad, bad, bad, monkey.

 

[elektra]

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”

9thIDdoc —

I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the history of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.

The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.

There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.

Nice comment, but I am curious, seeings how this was a Democrat War, started and ran by Democrats. Reported on by the Democrats in the media. How is it rightwing propaganda?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

..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

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

You have not provided a single fact JUST peoples opinion. And the FACTS are against you but you won't learn them because you are to stupid or arrogant to read them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum

This aint an Adult Forum. They have rules to protect the children that actually post here as well. And who is Morley Safer? A war studies researcher? Was he a political scientist? Was he a Secretary of War? Tell us, who you are relying on to make the argument you can not? Go ahead, tell us.

He is a newsman.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”

9thIDdoc —

I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the history of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.

The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.

There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.

Democrats started our military involvement and escalated it to 500000 troops, a Republican ended it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”

9thIDdoc —

I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the history of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.

The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.

There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.

Nice comment, but I am curious, seeings how this was a Democrat War, started and ran by Democrats. Reported on by the Democrats in the media. How is it rightwing propaganda?

“Rightwing” propaganda today probably means Republican propaganda to you and most people nowadays, just as “Leftwing” propaganda means Democratic propaganda. Not my meaning at all. Perhaps I should have said “pro-war” or “pro-imperialist” propaganda to be clearer. The anti-war movement was already back then regularly denounced as “leftwing,” “traitorous” and “communistic,” even when it was moderate or even religious. Anti-war MLK was labeled a communist too ... at least by “extreme rightists.” I guess “rightwing” & “pro-war” seemed almost synonymous terms back then to describe war hawks. “Rightwing pro-war liberals” seemed the norm in the early and mid sixties. Of course most of us back then considered war hawks of any party “rightwing” & pro-Establishment. It didn’t matter much, at least to me, what party they were in. Worth thinking about...

 

[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.

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

Just no end to your ignorance.
World War II was not a single war. Dozens-possibly hundreds- of countries were invaded and had their governments replaced. Many of them more than once. Civil wars (Which Vietnam was NOT) can result in a change in government the same as any other wars. Since WW II nations in Africa, the middle East and South America have changed governments about as often as a stylish woman changes shoes. N. Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam more than once and also invaded Laos and Cambodia (more than once). Where else was N. Vietnam's "Ho Chi Minh's trail" and related bases located? If you ever took your nose out of Communist propaganda pamphlets long enough to open an actual history book you would know that even N. Vietnam now agrees with the basic facts. At the time N. Vietnam and all their little anti-war sympathizers claimed there were were NO N.Vietnamese in South Vietnam. But even they dropped that claim after their first full scale (failed) invasion. Catch up.

 

[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.

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

And then Russia invaded Germany and won as did the US Britain and several other countries.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The main American anti-war organizations raised slogans like “Support Our Boys, Bring Them Home Now!”

9thIDdoc —

I know all about the anti-war movement because I was fully a part of it. An organizer. I also knew more about the history of Vietnam way back in 1968 ... than you know today.

The main slogans of the great anti-war marches were argued over and debated intensely by all the main groups participating. There certainly in some places were very “radical” slogans raised by smaller groups, just as there were very patriotic and also religious pacifist slogans as well. The media of course always played up what sold papers. The Movement involved millions of Americans and continued waxing and waning over time, as U.S. policy went from escalating to negotiating to expanded bombing, and finally to withdrawing.

There were many kinds of U.S. soldiers involved in the war too. Though most were draftees at its height, there were always gung-ho types who volunteered. Most knew little or nothing about the history of Vietnam. Thousands never questioned rightwing propaganda. Most started as honest patriots or unhappy draftees and learned hard lessons about being lied to and abused by their own leaders... Others learned nothing from their experiences and are still bloodthirsty warmongers. To this date they feel they must justify themselves and the American failure with tedious lies like your own.

I didn't and don't care about slogans. It is well known that slogans-both pro and con-are simply propaganda. I care about anti-american anti-soldier actions some of which I mentioned and you carefully avoided referring to. I am aware that some kids went to protests to party and have a good time and I don't consider them guilty of more than keeping bad company. There were more enlistees in Vietnam than draftees and the vast majority of both considered the anti-war protesters traitorous scum and still do. If you want to deny what I say or have said I want know how much of Vietnam you saw during those times. How many S. Vietnamese you spent time with and talked to. How much time did you spend talking with American soldiers and learning their views? If you want to talk about liars we need to talk about serious liars like John Kerry Jane Fonda and the rest of the thoroughly discredited VVAW.

Oh look there's ole Hanoi Jane laughing it up with enemy soldiers during time of war. May she roast in Hell.

 

[Mindful]

Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.

 

[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

And then Russia invaded Germany and won as did the US Britain and several other countries.

hahahhahhaa
1. Germany was the aggressor
2. countrieS --with an S--defeated Germany--including the 2 biggest--not ONE country --but many

 

[harmonica]

Looking at Vietnam, made me wonder whether terrain plays a part in who wins, and who doesn’t.

..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

Just no end to your ignorance.
World War II was not a single war. Dozens-possibly hundreds- of countries were invaded and had their governments replaced. Many of them more than once. Civil wars (Which Vietnam was NOT) can result in a change in government the same as any other wars. Since WW II nations in Africa, the middle East and South America have changed governments about as often as a stylish woman changes shoes. N. Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam more than once and also invaded Laos and Cambodia (more than once). Where else was N. Vietnam's "Ho Chi Minh's trail" and related bases located? If you ever took your nose out of Communist propaganda pamphlets long enough to open an actual history book you would know that even N. Vietnam now agrees with the basic facts. At the time N. Vietnam and all their little anti-war sympathizers claimed there were were NO N.Vietnamese in South Vietnam. But even they dropped that claim after their first full scale (failed) invasion. Catch up.

it wasn't a single war???!!! hahahah WTF is that???
....Germany LOST the war--Germany lost WW2
..you don't know shit about wars if you don't know most wars are not total, and most wars are contained
....remember, the point is not MANY wars are where a country takes over another/etc.....
-----so name some more post WW2 wars where a country invaded and totally took over another country?
..for every 1 you can name, I can name 2 dozen that are not like that
..I've got it covered ANY way you slice it

 

[harmonica]

...if you don't know who Morley Safer is, you are too young to be on an Adult forum

This aint an Adult Forum. They have rules to protect the children that actually post here as well. And who is Morley Safer? A war studies researcher? Was he a political scientist? Was he a Secretary of War? Tell us, who you are relying on to make the argument you can not? Go ahead, tell us.

He is a newsman.

he covered NINE wars

 

[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

RETARD it was 2 COUNTRIES. South Vietnam DID NOT FALL to rebels or insurgents or the citizens of that Country, they were invaded by 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, the people of South Vietnam were not in rebellion that ended with the TET Offensive in 68. Learn a few facts you dumb ass.

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''

Timelines: VIETNAM | Asia for Educators | Columbia University

afe.easia.columbia.edu

.....any way---blah blah--the point was, [ the fact ] there are not many wars at all where a invader totally takes over another country/changes that country/etc -post WW2
..for every one you can name [ maybe 1 or 2 ] , I can name 2 dozen
..most wars are contained and not total

 

[harmonica]

'''''Nationwide elections to decide the future of Vietnam,''''
which the US refused to allow

Vietnam War - French Rule, Division, Conflict | Britannica

Vietnam War - French Rule, Division, Conflict: The Vietnam War had its origins in the broader Indochina wars of the 1940s and '50s, when nationalist groups such as Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh, inspired by Chinese and Soviet communism, fought the colonial rule first of Japan and then of France.

www.britannica.com

 

[9thIDdoc]

'''''Nationwide elections to decide the future of Vietnam,''''
which the US refused to allow

Vietnam War - French Rule, Division, Conflict | Britannica

Vietnam War - French Rule, Division, Conflict: The Vietnam War had its origins in the broader Indochina wars of the 1940s and '50s, when nationalist groups such as Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh, inspired by Chinese and Soviet communism, fought the colonial rule first of Japan and then of France.

www.britannica.com

I showed this to be bullshit long since and wasted my time providing a link showing as much. You obviously don't read the content of your own links so I don't know why I thought you might read mine.

" Geneva Accords, collection of documents relating to Indochina and issuing from the Geneva Conference of April 26–July 21, 1954, attended by representatives of Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, France, Laos, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Viet Minh (i.e., the North Vietnamese), and the State of Vietnam (i.e., the South Vietnamese). The 10 documents—none of which were treaties binding the participants—consisted of 3 military agreements, 6 unilateral declarations, and a Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference (July 21, 1954).
Following intensive negotiations, beginning on May 8, 1954, the day after the fall of the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu, agreements were finally signed on July 21 between the French and Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian representatives.
Execution of the agreements was to be supervised by a commission of representatives from India, Poland, and Canada. A provision that was known as the Final Declaration stipulated that all-Vietnamese elections were to be held under the supervision of the committee before July 1956 to reunify the country.
Most of the nine participating countries pledged themselves to guarantee the agreements, but the United States made it clear that it was not bound by them. The South Vietnamese also withheld approval, and the Final Declaration was left unsigned by all parties. The U.S. government undertook to build a separate anticommunist state in South Vietnam and in 1956 supported South Vietnam’s refusal to hold nationwide elections in consultation with North Vietnam."

Geneva Accords | History of Indochina & Impact on Vietnam War | Britannica

Geneva Accords, collection of documents relating to Indochina and issuing from the Geneva Conference of April 26–July 21, 1954, attended by representatives of Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, France, Laos, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Viet Minh (i.e., the

www.britannica.com