Vietnam War was unwinnable

[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

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

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

 

[elektra]

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back far before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule the decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but instead to sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Ho Chi Minh’s popular rule, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The French could not win the war because Eisenhower betrayed the French. Would the French have lost at Dien Bien Phu had Eisenhower not agreed to a cease fire? We agreed that we would not agree to a seperate cease fire in Korea while the French fought in Vietnam. That one action freed all of the Chinese troops to move south and attack the French. Further, Eisenhower denied the French air support. I do not care what the long term prospects of peace, winning, whatever was in Vietnam, but during the siege of Dien Bien Phu was not a time to deny the French the supplies and air support they needed.

Eisenhower? Never talked to or corresponded with? Certainly willful ignorance is no excuse, Eisenhower could of won the War during his term, by being an ally to the French, instead of betraying the French.

A very sad time in our history, our betrayal of France. Our betrayal resulted in many fine French men, dying, needlessly.

 

[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

.....it was a country that was separated
''''''• Vietnam divided into North and South''''''
Actually it was a country called French Indochina that would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
You are unable to prove what you are trying to claim is a point.
Still waiting

ok ok .....let's review:
..I said there are not many examples of a country invading another and taking it over completely.....most wars are contained and not total
...ok I'll give you Nam, even though it was a civil war where the GREAT US did not win....ok, let me count how many countries you named.....let me get my calculator ........aaahhhhhh ahem.....please, patience .......ok
here it is.... you named a grand total of ONE!!!!!!!

 

[harmonica]

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

...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever

..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
3. the ARVN were next to useless
4. etc

 

[harmonica]

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back far before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule the decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but instead to sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Ho Chi Minh’s popular rule, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The French could not win the war because Eisenhower betrayed the French. Would the French have lost at Dien Bien Phu had Eisenhower not agreed to a cease fire? We agreed that we would not agree to a seperate cease fire in Korea while the French fought in Vietnam. That one action freed all of the Chinese troops to move south and attack the French. Further, Eisenhower denied the French air support. I do not care what the long term prospects of peace, winning, whatever was in Vietnam, but during the siege of Dien Bien Phu was not a time to deny the French the supplies and air support they needed.

Eisenhower? Never talked to or corresponded with? Certainly willful ignorance is no excuse, Eisenhower could of won the War during his term, by being an ally to the French, instead of betraying the French.

A very sad time in our history, our betrayal of France. Our betrayal resulted in many fine French men, dying, needlessly.

......hold it !!!!!! you people have been SCREAMING that the DEMOCRATS were spineless/losers/didn't have the guts/etc?????!!!!!!??? it was the Dems fault !!!!!
Ike was not a Dem!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
..we gave the French $$$$$MILLIONS!!!!!
...hey pal----learn some tactics and history...they had the French in a '''barrel''''...no matter WTF we did, the French will lose......they were surrounded and on the LOW ground-dumbasses

......o--talking about googling--I've been reading and researching war for over 40 years...I was in the USMC for 8

 

[RetiredGySgt]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

And yet by 1969 almost NO ONE in South Vietnam wanted to be part of the North.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever

..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
3. the ARVN were next to useless
4. etc

After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.

 

[harmonica]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

And yet by 1969 almost NO ONE in South Vietnam wanted to be part of the North.

from the fake Marine
......no way you are a gunny.....you initiate insults --and they are childish ones...a real USMC gunny would be professional

......what''s your point, anyway???!!! the US is the one who did not want elections--like the American leftists and blacks today

 

[harmonica]

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

...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever

..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
3. the ARVN were next to useless
4. etc

After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.

......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!! how do you explain that?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back far before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule the decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but instead to sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Ho Chi Minh’s popular rule, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I am convinced that the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam, weak and confused, badly weakened their military position. I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Indeed, the lack of leadership and drive on the part of Bao Dai was a factor in the feeling prevalent among Vietnamese that they had nothing to fight for.”

Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:
President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The French could not win the war because Eisenhower betrayed the French. Would the French have lost at Dien Bien Phu had Eisenhower not agreed to a cease fire? We agreed that we would not agree to a seperate cease fire in Korea while the French fought in Vietnam. That one action freed all of the Chinese troops to move south and attack the French. Further, Eisenhower denied the French air support. I do not care what the long term prospects of peace, winning, whatever was in Vietnam, but during the siege of Dien Bien Phu was not a time to deny the French the supplies and air support they needed.

Eisenhower? Never talked to or corresponded with? Certainly willful ignorance is no excuse, Eisenhower could of won the War during his term, by being an ally to the French, instead of betraying the French.

A very sad time in our history, our betrayal of France. Our betrayal resulted in many fine French men, dying, needlessly.

What a joke. So now the “treason” in Vietnam begins not with Democrats, home front communist sympathizers or the liberal media, but with ... President Eisenhower. Old John Bircher stuff.

 

[elektra]

......hold it !!!!!! you people have been SCREAMING that the DEMOCRATS were spineless/losers/didn't have the guts/etc?????!!!!!!??? it was the Dems fault !!!!!
Ike was not a Dem!!!!!!!
hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
..we gave the French $$$$$MILLIONS!!!!!
...hey pal----learn some tactics and history...they had the French in a '''barrel''''...no matter WTF we did, the French will lose......they were surrounded and on the LOW ground-dumbasses

......o--talking about googling--I've been reading and researching war for over 40 years...I was in the USMC for 8

I never said that about democrats, not once, nor did I imply it. What is it with DemoRATS. When confronted with the truth, the lie, scamper, and insult. Go ahead and direct us all to the post where you accuse me of saying what you believe. Again, you prove that you have no education, nor are interested in anything but what your opinion is and the google search you think supports it.

Yes, the French were surrounded. By Chinese that packed up their weapons and ammunition from Korea and walked it on down to Vietnam.

Unlike you, I do know history. I actually own and read books and quote directly from most things you will cherry pick from a google search.

 

[elektra]

What a joke. So now the “treason” in Vietnam begins not with Democrats, home front communist sympathizers or the liberal media, but with ... President Eisenhower. Old John Bircher stuff.

The joke is you never saw past the USA's Vietnam war. The joke is you never ever thought that our involvement was more than Kennedy and Johnson. The joke is when you get confronted with something you know nothing about you call it, "bircher".

How many sources do you want. I can quote Bernard Fall, Two Viet-Nams or Eisenhower. You have another source other than the internet, chances are, if it is relevant I have the book. If not I can get the book.

Have you read Fall? If you have not you have missed what every historian calls, mandatory reading.

Eisenhower's own words, Mandate for Change 1953-1956, p338

"Toward the end of 1953, the effect of the termination of hostilities in Korea began to be felt in Indochina... The Chinese Communists now were able to spare greatly increased quantities of material in the form of guns and ammunition (largely supplied by the Soviets) for use in the Indochinese battle front. More advisers were being sent in and the Chinese were making available to the Viet-Minh logistical experience they had gained in the Korean war. "

 

[elektra]

from the fake Marine
......no way you are a gunny.....you initiate insults --and they are childish ones...a real USMC gunny would be professional

......what''s your point, anyway???!!! the US is the one who did not want elections--like the American leftists and blacks today

A fake Marine? According to you, a person who does not read past a google search result? A real Gunny does just that, chews you up and spits you out as an insult. Professional? Gunny's were built for war, not pussies.

 

[elektra]

9thIDdoc

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

So, you get your quote from a cherry picked google search, I paraphrase the same book and you call it, "old john bircher stuff".

In my last comment, I quoted directly from the book I own. When I quote the book you introduced to this discussion through a google search, it is a joke? But it is not a joke for you? I guess you are eating a huge mouthful of foot, right now!

 

[elektra]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

And lets not leave out the Chinese colonization of Viet-Nam? 1000 years of Chinese rule. Or what about the Viet-Namese colonization of it's neighbors. Imperial Viet-Nam, why did you seem to not acknowledge that aspect of Viet-Nam?

When the French made a foothold in South Vietnam, it was Vietnamese a very short time. So short a time, it was barely Vietnamese. South of the 17 parallel was Vietnamese less time than the eastern seaboard of America, was american.

So you are a bit more than incorrect when you speak of South Vietnam being the same as Vietnam north of the 17 parallel.

 

[Dick Foster]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

The odd thing is Ho Chi Minh approached president Woodrow Wilson for aid long before he approached communist countries for help and aid to rid themselves of the french imperialist as far back as WWI and Wilson's league of nations but he was ignored by Wilson and all subsequent american presidents becausd they all had their heads shoved so far up France's ass. He also patterened Vietnam's constitution after our own.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

9thIDdoc —

What you call “a country called French Indochina” that “would later be divided into countries known as Laos, Cambodia, North and South Vietnam” was just a French colony. The peoples of these areas, their economies, cultures, languages and histories, were very distinct. But “North” and “South” Vietnam shared a common language, culture and a long complex history that went back more than a thousand years before the French and Japanese occupations.

As for the Geneva Accords ending French rule and the terrible decision of the U.S. not to sign them, but rather sabotage the elections that would have re-unified the country democratically under Vietnam’s popular leader Ho Chi Minh, read this quote from President Eisenhower himself ...

“I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader...”
Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372 [boldface mine]

Also, for a fuller view of Eisenhower’s view on the military and political situation in French-occupied Vietnam in those days, see:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the likelihood that Ho Chi Minh would win a national election in Vietnam in 1955

And yet by 1969 almost NO ONE in South Vietnam wanted to be part of the North.

from the fake Marine
......no way you are a gunny.....you initiate insults --and they are childish ones...a real USMC gunny would be professional

......what''s your point, anyway???!!! the US is the one who did not want elections--like the American leftists and blacks today

The South Vietnamese did not want elections either. Dumb ass,Ho chi Min had already planned for disruption of all voting in the South he had no intention of allowing fair elections. As for the South they NEVER had problems fielding troops or security and the majority of the South DID NOT want Communist rule. And what insurgency there was was snuffed out in the Tet Offensive of 68. South Vietnam AGAIN FOR YOUR STUPID ASS, did NOT fall to insurgency it was invaded by 25 Divisions of North Vietnamese.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

...in PG1, the US airpower/etc were supreme in the desert.....of course it's easier to find and target the enemy in the desert .....but, after we ''destroyed'' their military, we still have problems--not total victory- just like in Afghanistan
... the VC and NVA sometimes only fought when they wanted to, in the Vietnamese jungles....a lot tougher -sure
....we did beat them during the Tet Offensive---a lot of that fighting was in the cities....but it was meaningless for the US.....they were going to be there forever--but the US could not be there forever

..the other thing was--we ''beat'' [ ? ] them at Khe Sahn--and then we evacuated the base destroying what could be destroyed
..same thing at Hamburger Hill---many dead taking the hill...we took it--then left......!!!!! how do you win!!! ??
...so the geniuses say we should go into the North.....
1. why? escalate a much more MASSIVE war--for what reason?
2. the enemy would just fight when they wanted to...they didn't have to win--just not lose -like the US Revolution
3. the ARVN were next to useless
4. etc

After TET there was no more insurgency, learn a few facts you moron. Even North Vietnam understood this.

......no more insurgency----???!!!!...but the North won!!! how do you explain that?

THEY INVADED with 25 DIVISIONS , GOD you are stupid read a fucking history book.

 

[elektra]

And, let us not forget, the Viet-Nam invited the French into the country. That they embraced the French religion, French trade, and any technology the French shared. They embraced French advisors and asked for French military.

Of course that is a very condensed picture of the history but it is fact none the less.