Vietnam War was unwinnable

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
419
Reaction score
124
Points
178
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.

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
38,455
Reaction score
10,277
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.
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.
Ike told you about the dangers of the MIC way back in 1960. Was he lying?
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
419
Reaction score
124
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.
Ike told you about the dangers of the MIC way back in 1960. Was he lying?
You didn't read the entire speech did you?
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
38,455
Reaction score
10,277
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.
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.
Ike told you about the dangers of the MIC way back in 1960. Was he lying?
You didn't read the entire speech did you?
You didn’t comprehend the speech did you?
 

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,514
Reaction score
2,285
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.

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
That is an excellent point. Phil Jennings makes the same point in his book. We had a golden opportunity to decimate the NV army for years to come. But, NV counted on American Democrats to keep President Ford from providing air support to South Vietnam, and the Democrats came through for the Communists, and in so doing they sentenced hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese to execution and brutal "reeducation" camps.
 

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,514
Reaction score
2,285
Points
420
Location
Virginia
I should mention that we know from memoirs of North Vietnamese leaders that NV viewed anti-war Democrats and the American news media as two of their most vital allies. We also know from those memoirs and from NV official documents that they had no intention of honoring the ceasefire, that they used the bombing halts to move troops and supplies into position for future attacks, and that they launched their final invasion on the assumption that Congressional Democrats would prevent American intervention.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
 
Last edited:
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
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.

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
hahahhahahahahahha
jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
''easily annihilated'' ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,934
Reaction score
9,960
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,934
Reaction score
9,960
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no South Vietnam today
Correct me if I am wrong, Nort Vietnam invaded with 25 divisions and no insurgency took over South Vietnam while the democrats REFUSED to honor a treaty?
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
many VC attacks AFTER the US left
etc etc
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
And the mission in South Vietnam was to prevent an insurgency from winning, Which we accomplished.
OMG!!!
......the mission was to keep the North from over running/taking over the South--to keep the South free from communism..... you are just babbling by inserting ''insurgency'' in there...you tried that before --and it is wrong
..the communist took over the South --plain and simple
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,934
Reaction score
9,960
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
By invasin which we could have stopped had we honored our treaty with South Vietnam as we did in 72.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
419
Reaction score
124
Points
178
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
Actually the U.S. lost about 33,000 soldiers killed in the Korean War. They later arrived at the 54,000 figure by adding all U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen lost by the U.S. military worldwide during the Korean War.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
419
Reaction score
124
Points
178
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.

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
hahahhahahahahahha
jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
''easily annihilated'' ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
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.

People forget that the massive North Vietnamese army that launched the final invasion of South Vietnam was hideously vulnerable to U.S. air power. Massive B-52 strikes would've easily annihilated that army with tens of thousands of North Vietnamese deaths at the very least. If the U.S. had done so it would've been years, possibly decades before the North Vietnamese could've made another such effort.
hahahhahahahahahha
jesus christ hahhahahahahhahahaha
they didn't have the smart bombs they do now.....
''easily annihilated'' ---hahahahhahah-NO WAY
You don't need smart bombs to annihilate 25 divisions of infantry and armor in a road march with no effective anti air support.
even smart bombs would not do it......the NVA had been dealing with superior US airpower for YEARS---and you think it's going to stop them???!!!!
 
OP
harmonica

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
32,800
Reaction score
9,102
Points
1,340
Korea was essentially the same situation as Vietnam. A communist based regime decided to take over a lucrative capitalist society under the pretense of unifying the people. LBJ couldn't get support from congress so he faked a crisis to get Troops to Vietnam. Truman couldn't get support from congress so he sent Troops to Korea under an executive order. Both administrations were democrat so they had the automatic support (at first) from the fawning media. LBJ was a clerk in WW2 who recommended himself for a Silver Star for riding in a plane over enemy territory. He didn't have a freaking clue so he let the CIA (who didn't have a freaking clue) run the Vietnam war. Truman hired a WW1 veteran who retired before WW2 (and came back) to run his campaign in Korea. MacArthur was a grand strategist but never spent a single night on the Peninsula. Allied Troops were pushed to the tip of the Korean Peninsula and the issue was in doubt until the brilliant Inchon Landing that cut the NK supply lines. To make a long story short the war was over when American forces captured the NK capital of Pyong Yang but wait. Wasn't the media watching? The war was over and Red China wasn't even in the picture until MacArthur had a senior citizen moment and decided to become king of Korea by marching ill equipped American Troops to the Yalu river. Truman's timid leadership left the U.S. at technical state of war that still exists to this day. The bottom line is that Korea was winnable and so was Vietnam but the greatest Armed Forces in the world struggled with the wrong leadership and a fawning media that seldom saw a democrat it wouldn't support. The ironic thing was that the losses in the 3 year quagmire in Korea were close to the almost decade long Vietnam conflict but the media was sensitive to the Truman legacy and dismissed Korea as the "forgotten war" which was insulting to the people who fought in it. Both Truman and MacArthur paid the price politically when Vets were galvanized enough to end both political careers. LBJ dropped out on his own.
..the US could not win in Vietnam--the evidence is overwhelming
we DID win in Korea
...a lot of people think in terms of board games/TV/movies/etc----most wars are not total and usually do not have a clear winner
..the mission in Korea was to eject the NKs from the South--that mission was completed
"We did win in Korea"? You are a victim of the left wing propaganda machine. We had the war won in about a year until MacArthur's trip to the Yalu. We left Korea with about 50,000 killed in only 3 years (revised by Bill Clinton to 35,000) and an embarrassing "truce" with terms dictated by the Chi-Coms and back where we started technically still at war.
...like I said you people think in movie/TV/unrealistic terms
'''''United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 was a measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on June 25, 1950. The resolution demanded North Korea immediately end its invasion of South Korea,''''
mission accomplished = won
..I'll say it again, most wars are not like WW2...wars are politically complicated
..we did not send troops there to take over North Korea--that wasn't the goal
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top