Vietnam War was unwinnable

[rightwinger]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

 

[rightwinger]

We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support. That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords. Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.

Pretty much a bullseye. NV signed the peace treaty because we were bombing them into eternity, mining their harbors, cutting off their main supply routes, etc., etc. But NV knew they could count on American Democrats and the American news media to smear South Vietnam and to tear down the war effort, and the Democrats and the media came through for the communists.

NV had been fighting and dying for decades
They were not about to give up

Nixon was begging to get out

 

[Turtlesoup]

..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
.

Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be. Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.

You have actual evidence of this?

Dont you know how the Kennedy clan made their money besides bootlegging and other criminal activity? They were also heavily into weapons investment.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

 

[Dayton3]

..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
.

Vietnam was a money maker for certain people and that is all it was meant to be. Among those that got richer off it---were the Kennedys.

You have actual evidence of this?

Dont you know how the Kennedy clan made their money besides bootlegging and other criminal activity? They were also heavily into weapons investment.

Interesting.
Citation requested.

 

[harmonica]

We could AND DID seal off North Vietnam from both Chinese and Soviet support. That's what forced the DPRVN to sign the Paris Peace Accords. Without the food, weapons and supplies the PRC and USSR were providing the Democratic People's Republic of Vietnam at no cost, . it had no ability to defend itself, let alone continue it's war of aggression against the Republic of Vietnam.

Pretty much a bullseye. NV signed the peace treaty because we were bombing them into eternity, mining their harbors, cutting off their main supply routes, etc., etc. But NV knew they could count on American Democrats and the American news media to smear South Vietnam and to tear down the war effort, and the Democrats and the media came through for the communists.

..so sealing it off [ hahahahhahahaha which they didn't ] won the war for the US???!!! [ FYI, the US did not win ]

 

[harmonica]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
--you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
--like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity

 

[Dayton3]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
--you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
--like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity

Lots of wars last for decades. Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?

 

[Uncensored2008]

..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
.

We could have won the Vietnam war in a matter of months. But it would have to have been a war, not a "police action." Had we fought it the way we fought in Europe we would have quickly crushed the Communists. But we didn't, we stayed behind imaginary lines and played games.

 

[Desperado]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

The SlotMachine Theory of War.... Just a little more time and a little more money and we would have WON, Seems to be the battle cry of the Vietnam era generals

 

[Desperado]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

Might want to rethink that year...... The last combat troops of the United States were pulled out of South Vietnam on 29 March 1973. 8,500 American civilians, embassy guards, and defense office soldiers remained in Saigon. The largest helicopter evacuation in history occurred on 29 April 1975

 

[mikegriffith1]

The one and only time when NV made the mistake of engaging us in a large-scale, set-piece battle, i.e., the Tet Offensive, we slaughtered them on an enormous scale. The Tet Offensive was a *military* disaster for NV. Ho Chi Minh was so upset with the gigantic losses and the failure to hold a single city that he fired General Giap, the planner and leader of the offensive. It took NV at least 2 years to recover from the devastation that we imposed on them.

But, our news media and anti-war Democrats (I know: that's redundant) gave NV a great PR victory, and damaged public support for the war, by painting the Tet Offensive as a communist victory and as an indication that we had no hope of victory.

 

[elektra]

..and Britain was in Europe many times before 1943---what a dumbass statement by elektra

Yes, the USA's involvement in Viet-Nam was far more than 7 years. Our first involvement was well over a 100 years before Viet-Nam war. Your statement about over 7 years of involvement simply shows your ignorance on this topic. You believed our involvement was so short you could not even think you should look it up. At the very least we were up to our necks as early as 1954 through 1973? At least 19 years. Then again Truman began our assistance as early as 1947, can I say 26 years of involvement?

Why? we had no business being there

because you say so? we have business wherever communism rears it's ugly head.

 

[elektra]

100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time

I stated our first involvement with Viet-Nam was a 100 ago. That is an accurate statement. A fact.

 

[elektra]

100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time

1947, not 1955. You should read a book and quit using google as your brain.

 

[harmonica]

100 years!!!!!!!!!??? hahahhahahahaha
it started in 1955 with the French ...use a calculator next time

I stated our first involvement with Viet-Nam was a 100 ago. That is an accurate statement. A fact.

hahahahhahahahahha
it has no relevance at all to the subject

 

[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
.

We could have won the Vietnam war in a matter of months. But it would have to have been a war, not a "police action." Had we fought it the way we fought in Europe we would have quickly crushed the Communists. But we didn't, we stayed behind imaginary lines and played games.

unbelievable/insane

 

[harmonica]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
--you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
--like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity

Lots of wars last for decades. Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?

lots of wars what??
....also, if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars?? if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam

 

[Dayton3]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
--you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
--like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity

Lots of wars last for decades. Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?

lots of wars what??
....also, if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars?? if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam

You support the U.S. going to war with Iran? Great! Something we can agree on. We're probably more alike than you think.

 

[harmonica]

The idiots in this thread that insist we lost can not face the FACTS or REALITY. By 72 we had stabilized South Vietnam. No Insurgency was left. In 72 the South with our air support stopped a major North Vietnamese invasion with NO US Troops involved in combat. In 74 the Democrats cut off South Vietnam from supplies and our Treaty agreement. In 75 the North Invaded again with a small incursion we they saw the US would not honor the committment of a VALID SIGNED TREATY they switched to an all out INVASION. 25 North Vietnamese Divisions, NO internal insurgency at ALL. With out our supplies and fuel the South still fought. With out our air support they fought for a month out numbered over 2 to one. The dems sold out an ally with a VALID Treaty.

Damnit

If we only had a little more time and just a few more casualties, we would have WON

We did NOT have troops in Vietnam after 72 you fucking MORON. The South just needed air support and to be supplied with ammo parts and fuel. they proved that in 72.

..that's all they needed--air support and supplies!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
the US had air support and it didn't win the war--the North kept fighting
--you want to keep the war going for decades!!!!
--like i said--doing the same thing over and over--expecting different results = insanity

Lots of wars last for decades. Why the American obsession with extremely short conflicts?

lots of wars what??
....also, if you mean why the Americans don't want long wars?? if the war is worth fighting for --like WW2, no problem...if it is something like Vietnam--no shit it should be short!!!!!!!!--should not have been there in the first place
..we had more reason to be at war with Iran than NVietnam

You support the U.S. going to war with Iran? Great! Something we can agree on. We're probably more alike than you think.

..... I meant the Hostage Crisis --we had every right to go to war and/or blast some shit.....I was just thinking the other day about a thread on what options we had during the Hostage Crisis ...I'll have to post that sometime