Vietnam War was unwinnable

[whitehall]

LBJ, who managed to get American Troops to Vietnam with a fake crisis, had the full support of the democrat party that dominated politics at the time. He set the rules so that the U.S. could win every battle and still lose the war. Just when LBJ achieved the unthinkable on the backs of Marines after the Tet offensive and the V.C. were whipped he gave up. Instead of claiming victory and forcing the VC into capitulation and just when the U.S. needed leadership, LBJ gave up on public T.V. and gave Giap crucial capital for Chinese support and recruitment. Democrats managed to blame the whole thing on Nixon.

 

[Bleipriester]

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

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

Do we really need a strategy? If yes, it should be a strategy that will not make them angry. They hold in hands a large part of western know how. Western companies are in joint ventures with Chinese companies, they cannot have own places (with few exceptions) and there is a tech transfer to the Chinese joint venture partner. They are already the largest economy and will be, based on their numbers, the absolute Number 1. Aggressive behavior will not pay off. The day will come and they will decide who takes part in trade. Get used to that fact.

 

[K9Buck]

...it should be a strategy that will not make them angry.

You mean like how France and England didn't want to make Hitler angry?

 

[Bleipriester]

...it should be a strategy that will not make them angry.

You mean like how France and England didn't want to make Hitler angry?

We don´t need to appease them. Let them have their islands, who cares. They are not coming for us as Hitler wasn´t coming for them. Plus we can´t do anything about that, anyway.
The only way to maintain an advantage is to call our companies home and let them only produce in China what they sell in China without anymore tech transfer. If China is not in agreement, we can still use your plan, right?
As for America, MAGA can only take place in the US, not in China, Venezuela or anywhere else.

 

[Andylusion]

..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
.

No I disagree. Completely. There is no evidence that the war was un-winnable. Every single time.... EVERY TIME... that Viet-Cong troops fought directly with US troops... they were slaughtered. Every single time, that our troops, confronted their troops directly, we slaughtered them. Completely and utterly, destroyed them.

In fact the Tet offensive, which the left-wingers usually point to as the proof we were not winning against the North Vietnamese, actually proved the opposite. If you look at where they attacked, they specifically targeted places that they believed had no American military presence. They targeted locations defended by the South Vietnamese military, because they knew the Americans would slaughter them.

Further we know that the North Vietnamese actively asked Stalin if they could end hostilities. Stalin wanted them to keep fighting, because he knew the immoral godless left in the US was pushing Stalin's propaganda in the war to demoralize the US military and public. Which is exactly what happened, and is still happening to this day.

If the US military had been unleashed to go and attack the north, we would have easily over run the north Vietnamese and wiped out the entire Vietcong in one swoop. But the evil immoral left held our military back, kept them walking around in circles which did nothing but provide easy targets for the Vietcong, which is exactly what the left wanted. More dead troops. Just like like they marched through new york chanting 'we want dead cops' they were chanted 'baby killers' to our troops.

No, we absolutely could have won. No question about it. No doubt in my mind. There was not one significant attack by the North Vietnamese, that our military did not wipe the floor with. The only reason we did not win, is because the evil America hating left-wing, prevented them.

The left-wing loves having people killed.... and they did so.

The Vietnamese Boat People - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training

Thousands on thousands of Vietnamese were killed by the Vietcong after the the left-wing fininshed their shameful act by refusing to give support to the South Vietnamese when the North backed by Stalin, started rolling tanks into the south.

May G-d bless every Vietnamese saved in the US, and may G-d's wrath consume and destroy those evil bastards that supported the death of our troops, and the death of the south Vietnamese people, by their support for Stalin's propaganda and anti-US policies that led to those deaths.

 

[EduardBernstein]

Communists won so many wars. It is because communists are more intelligent than Nazis.

 

[Camp]

..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
.

No I disagree. Completely. There is no evidence that the war was un-winnable. Every single time.... EVERY TIME... that Viet-Cong troops fought directly with US troops... they were slaughtered. Every single time, that our troops, confronted their troops directly, we slaughtered them. Completely and utterly, destroyed them.

In fact the Tet offensive, which the left-wingers usually point to as the proof we were not winning against the North Vietnamese, actually proved the opposite. If you look at where they attacked, they specifically targeted places that they believed had no American military presence. They targeted locations defended by the South Vietnamese military, because they knew the Americans would slaughter them.

Further we know that the North Vietnamese actively asked Stalin if they could end hostilities. Stalin wanted them to keep fighting, because he knew the immoral godless left in the US was pushing Stalin's propaganda in the war to demoralize the US military and public. Which is exactly what happened, and is still happening to this day.

If the US military had been unleashed to go and attack the north, we would have easily over run the north Vietnamese and wiped out the entire Vietcong in one swoop. But the evil immoral left held our military back, kept them walking around in circles which did nothing but provide easy targets for the Vietcong, which is exactly what the left wanted. More dead troops. Just like like they marched through new york chanting 'we want dead cops' they were chanted 'baby killers' to our troops.

No, we absolutely could have won. No question about it. No doubt in my mind. There was not one significant attack by the North Vietnamese, that our military did not wipe the floor with. The only reason we did not win, is because the evil America hating left-wing, prevented them.

The left-wing loves having people killed.... and they did so.

The Vietnamese Boat People - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training

Thousands on thousands of Vietnamese were killed by the Vietcong after the the left-wing fininshed their shameful act by refusing to give support to the South Vietnamese when the North backed by Stalin, started rolling tanks into the south.

May G-d bless every Vietnamese saved in the US, and may G-d's wrath consume and destroy those evil bastards that supported the death of our troops, and the death of the south Vietnamese people, by their support for Stalin's propaganda and anti-US policies that led to those deaths.

Your post indicates you really have a bunch of misinformation for a basis of your ideas. Actually, your post is beyond dopey and just not credible. The most obvious goofy things in your posts are your references to Stalin.

 

[westwall]

..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
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

 

[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
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

isn't worth attempting

= 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
.

No I disagree. Completely. There is no evidence that the war was un-winnable. Every single time.... EVERY TIME... that Viet-Cong troops fought directly with US troops... they were slaughtered. Every single time, that our troops, confronted their troops directly, we slaughtered them. Completely and utterly, destroyed them.

In fact the Tet offensive, which the left-wingers usually point to as the proof we were not winning against the North Vietnamese, actually proved the opposite. If you look at where they attacked, they specifically targeted places that they believed had no American military presence. They targeted locations defended by the South Vietnamese military, because they knew the Americans would slaughter them.

Further we know that the North Vietnamese actively asked Stalin if they could end hostilities. Stalin wanted them to keep fighting, because he knew the immoral godless left in the US was pushing Stalin's propaganda in the war to demoralize the US military and public. Which is exactly what happened, and is still happening to this day.

If the US military had been unleashed to go and attack the north, we would have easily over run the north Vietnamese and wiped out the entire Vietcong in one swoop. But the evil immoral left held our military back, kept them walking around in circles which did nothing but provide easy targets for the Vietcong, which is exactly what the left wanted. More dead troops. Just like like they marched through new york chanting 'we want dead cops' they were chanted 'baby killers' to our troops.

No, we absolutely could have won. No question about it. No doubt in my mind. There was not one significant attack by the North Vietnamese, that our military did not wipe the floor with. The only reason we did not win, is because the evil America hating left-wing, prevented them.

The left-wing loves having people killed.... and they did so.

The Vietnamese Boat People - Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training

Thousands on thousands of Vietnamese were killed by the Vietcong after the the left-wing fininshed their shameful act by refusing to give support to the South Vietnamese when the North backed by Stalin, started rolling tanks into the south.

May G-d bless every Vietnamese saved in the US, and may G-d's wrath consume and destroy those evil bastards that supported the death of our troops, and the death of the south Vietnamese people, by their support for Stalin's propaganda and anti-US policies that led to those deaths.

hahahahah
so we attack in the North--and the NVA pick and choose when to fight
then what would we do??..give me some phases/strategy/etc......how would we win?

 

[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
.

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

'''when ya left'''----???? what does this mean
so the VC were wiped out, --we still lost.....
??? please explain more details

 

[harmonica]

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

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

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

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

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

They were going to take them anyway

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

....the ARVN got their asses whipped by the POORLY equipped VC....so they were surely going to get whipped by the NVA who were much better equipped and trained--if they had supplies or not -YOU need to learn some history
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia

HEY--you people are just like some of these people who think in TV terms/movie land
JESUS F CHRIST --it's not just a MILITARY problem--it was corruption/political/CULTURE that figures in-----

.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have

 

[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
.

No war is unwinnable, but some wars will require so much death and destruction that winning isn't worth attempting.

.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have

 

[harmonica]

it doesn't matter if the US stayed/sent more troops/supplies/etc =
.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have

 

[harmonica]

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

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

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

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

They were going to take them anyway

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

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

They still managed to lose

exactly
we were there long before 1965
here at Ap Bac, the VC beat the much better equipped ARVN
Battle of Ap Bac - Wikipedia
.....again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
what does this mean?????!!!!!! if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have

 

[harmonica]

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

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

stable???!!!! hahahahhahahahahahahhaahah
...again--the South had 3 heads of state changes in 2 years--one with murder---and many more attempted coups--very unstable government
....if the LEADERSHIP is crap, it doesn't matter how much supplies you have
...even though Thieu was in, you STILL have that corruption/instability/etc--you don't get rid of it in a few years

....you--of all people---should know you can't create an EFFICIENT military force with esprit de corp/etc in just a few years---especially with crap leadership

ANOTHER
ANOTHER COUP IN SOUTH VIETNAM RAISES QUESTIONS FOR A CRITICAL AREA; Asian Turmoil
Military Coups in South Vietnam

 

[harmonica]

...you can't create an efficient military force in a few YEARS--yes--YEARS
..so the ARVN were not stopping anyone

 

[harmonica]

You mean they are a source of cheap labor? How did we win anything?

Your leftist comrades won. Surely you're pleased about that outcome. After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?

why would we want that ---? they are competition --correct?

 

[K9Buck]

You mean they are a source of cheap labor? How did we win anything?

Your leftist comrades won. Surely you're pleased about that outcome. After all, we wouldn't want a South Vietnam that resembles a thriving, capitalist South Korea, correct?

why would we want that ---? they are competition --correct?

Why would we want what? I don't follow.

 

[rightwinger]

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

They were going to take them anyway

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

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

They still managed to lose

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

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

LOL GOD you are AMAZINGLY IGNORANT of basic historical facts.

We wanted to get out clean
Withdraw troops without suffering further casualties

N Vietnam dropped back, agreed to a ceasefire while we pulled out

That was not victory on our part