Vietnam War was unwinnable

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
I love the way Republicans (not all of them, only the retards) argue that it was evil Demonrats who started the Vietnam War and evil Demonrats who ... “Betrayed Vietnam.”

Makes one wonder what those godly Republicans were doing all those years?
Losing elections mainly.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,944
Reaction score
9,980
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
“Ho Chi Minh fired General Giap after his disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive ...”
That would have been hard for even Ho Chi Minh to manage considering that ... HE DIED ON SEPT. 2, 1969!

This is what happens when hysterical Republican hacks try to rewrite history. They not only weave an ideologically biased view that will only result in future “unwinnable” and UNJUST wars ... they don’t even get their FACTS straight!
Provide a link to your claim he was fired in 1968.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
1,696
Points
1,908
“Ho Chi Minh fired General Giap after his disastrous 1972 Easter Offensive ...”
That would have been hard for even Ho Chi Minh to manage considering that ... HE DIED ON SEPT. 2, 1969!

This is what happens when hysterical Republican hacks try to rewrite history. They not only weave an ideologically biased view that will only result in future “unwinnable” and UNJUST wars ... they don’t even get their FACTS straight!
Provide a link to your claim he was fired in 1968.
Excuse me, RetiredGySgt , but I said nothing about anybody being fired in 1968. Perhaps you were addressing somebody else?

In 1968 I was a young man being tear-gassed, arrested and beaten by cops for protesting the Vietnam War. :banghead: Not “fired” though. :)

If you reread what I wrote you will see I simply pointed out that Ho Chi Minh, long-time leader of the Vietnamese National Liberation Movement, DIED in 1969.

Therefore mikegriffith1 is wrong. Ho could not have fired General Giap in 1972.

Even Eisenhower admitted Ho would have won election as President of ALL Vietnam had elections been held as scheduled after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu. Some rarely acknowledged info regarding Ho Chi Minh’s earlier history can be found here: The Radicalization of Ho Chi Minh
 
Last edited:

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,333
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
..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.
Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
1,696
Points
1,908
Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.
This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,944
Reaction score
9,980
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
You supported the claim he was fired in 1968 though by claiming he was not fired in 1972. So Ho Chi Mein was dead there was still a leader and he fire him in 72.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
1,696
Points
1,908
You supported the claim he was fired in 1968 though by claiming he was not fired in 1972. So Ho Chi Mein was dead there was still a leader and he fire him in 72.
You are clearly having trouble understanding the English language. I only said he was not fired by Ho Chi Minh after Ho Chi Minh was already dead. My larger point was merely that mikegriffith1 made an elementary mistake that anybody with any real knowledge about Vietnamese history could never have made.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,944
Reaction score
9,980
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
You supported the claim he was fired in 1968 though by claiming he was not fired in 1972. So Ho Chi Mein was dead there was still a leader and he fire him in 72.
You are clearly having trouble understanding the English language. I only said he was not fired by Ho Chi Minh after Ho Chi Minh was already dead. My larger point was merely that mikegriffith1 made an elementary mistake that anybody with any real knowledge about Vietnamese history could never have made.
Doesn't change the fact that he was fired in 72. Which was the entire point. Who fired him is minor.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.
This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
the "military industrial complex" is a myth.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
1,696
Points
1,908
the "military industrial complex" is a myth.
Tell that to President Eisenhower, who warned specifically of its growing power in his 1961 retirement speech:


Today that power is far greater and more corrupting than Eisenhower could ever have dreamed.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
the "military industrial complex" is a myth.
Tell that to President Eisenhower, who warned specifically of its growing power in his 1961 retirement speech:

Today that power is far greater and more corrupting than Eisenhower could ever have dreamed.
You fixate on only one part of Eisenhower's speech. IIRC it was the same speech where Eisenhower warned that in a future war the United States would not have time to mobilize a major military force and such a conflict would be "come as you are". Given that Eisenhower stated that the U.S. had to maintain a large and strong conventional military even in peacetime.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,084
Reaction score
1,696
Points
1,908
As for the alleged “firing” of General Giap (in either 1968 or 1972) because of his supposedly pushing the Tet Offensive or later adventures, this again is both wrong and the product of Western ignorance and imagination. As is now generally conceded by most scholars, both General Giap and Ho Chi Minh thought the Tet Offensive was unwise and adventurous, but neither then were in a position to prevent it being carried out:

“The 1968 Tết Offensive was the brainchild of Communist Party Secretary Lêê Duẩn and General Văn Tiến Dũũng. The Hàà Nội government wanted to exploit the 1968 US presidential elections by opening negotiations with the United States. When General Võõ Nguyêên Giááp failed to devise a workable plan to win a military victory to give the communists leverage in the planned negotiations, Lêê Duẩn and Văn Tiến Dũũng pushed the risky plan for a nationwide ‘general offensive’ through a reluctant Politburo in spite of opposition from General Võõ Nguyêên Giááp and Hồ Chíí Minh.”

General Võõ Nguyêên Giááp and the Mysterious Evolution of the Plan for the 1968 Tết Offensive
 

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
35,555
Reaction score
5,294
Points
1,130
the "military industrial complex" is a myth.
Tell that to President Eisenhower, who warned specifically of its growing power in his 1961 retirement speech:


Today that power is far greater and more corrupting than Eisenhower could ever have dreamed.
You took him to school. :thup:
 

LA RAM FAN

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
35,555
Reaction score
5,294
Points
1,130
Lady Bird Johnson banked millions off of it.
This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
You nailed it,could not have said it any better myself.the blood of 58,000 Americans is on the hands of both johnson and Nixon,it wasn’t the NVA ot the Vietcong that murdered them,it was those two corporate whores and for all the idiot trolls out there like that retarded Sargent for one,enough of the crap thst Nixon ended the war,had he been able to have it his way the war would have gone on at least till 1976 had he not been impeached and served an entire second term had he remained in office.It was the American people that ended the fucking war.Warmonger Nixon expanded the war with his illegal Cambodia bombing campaign.

Had Dick Nixon Really had wanted the war to end,he could have ended it in 69 instead of delaying it another four years,plus the fact he delayed it sabotaging LBJ,s Paris peace talks. :uhoh3: So enough of this tiresome bs propaganda I have heard over the years from lying trolls like him that he ended the war with their revisionist crap.:uhoh3:
 
Last edited:

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,522
Reaction score
2,313
Points
420
Location
Virginia
This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.

The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.

As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
38,661
Reaction score
10,493
Points
1,330
This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.

The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.

As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
Agreed.

As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.

The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US. They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
This was a war which bankrupted the U.S. economically and spiritually. It led to the end of the Gold Standard and confirmed the standing of the Military Industrial Complex as a powerful independent and permanent feature of U.S. politics. Both parties supported the war initially, as did almost all Americans. Many Republicans, as well as Democrats, profited from war industry contributions.
Before I respond to this, let me note that, yes, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, and General Giap was fired in 1972 after his disastrous Easter Offensive. I already corrected the date of Giap's firing, but I had forgotten that Ho died in '69.

The Vietnam War did not bankrupt the U.S. economically. Furthermore, the war would have cost much less from '64 to '68 if LBJ had not so badly mishandled it and if he had replaced Westmoreland after it became obvious that his big-battle attrition strategy was the wrong approach.

As for spiritual bankruptcy, this can hardly be blamed on our effort to keep South Vietnam free. The spiritual bankrupting was done by the news media and by feckless Democrats who, after insisting on putting handcuffs on our military, turned against the war and continued to smear the war effort even when General Abrams dramatically revamped our strategy and began to achieve significant success in securing South Vietnam and in smashing the NV from 1968 through late 1972.
Agreed.

As to the point about the MIC becoming a powerful permanent fixture, IMHO the Cold War did that before Vietnam got going. Ike warned about it’s heinous nature in 1960 and it’s likely they had something to do with JFK’s assassination in 1963, since he was actively working to end the Cold War.

The Deep State and MIC are essentially the same and have enormous power in the US. They have controlled every president and Congress since JFK. Trump is no different and Biden will be even worse. With the rise of China and it’s alliance with Russia and Iran, the assholes running the MIC just might eliminate mankind.
Complete and utter BS. The military industrial complex in the United States is a myth. Most people seize on a single line of that Eisenhower speech and ignore the rest which was actually advocating a large peacetime military for the U.S.

Kennedy was assassinated by Oswald. No other credible evidence points in any other direction.

Case closed.
 

Mr Clean

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,005
Reaction score
4,002
Points
290
A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse.

How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
 

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,522
Reaction score
2,313
Points
420
Location
Virginia
A people fighting for control of their own country vs a bunch of enslaved 19 year olds who just want to get through it without getting maimed or worse. How is that not an unwinnable scenario?
What in the world are you talking about? Communist North Vietnam, with massive Soviet aid, invaded South Vietnam. We intervened to keep South Vietnam from being annexed by North Vietnam. North Vietnam and South Vietnam had been separate entities for centuries. The South Vietnamese were the ones who were "fighting for control of their own country," and we were trying to make sure they succeeded.

But treasonous Democrats in Congress gave North Vietnam the green light to break the ceasefire agreement by passing the Case-Church Amendment a few months after the ceasefire began, which virtually assured the Communists that America would not intervene to help South Vietnam again. Then, when North Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam, the Democrats refused to allow President Ford to provide the air support that we had promised to provide if the Communists broke the ceasefire and invaded.

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top