Vietnam War was unwinnable

[harmonica]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

we left because it was unwinnable

 

[JGalt]

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.

A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.

I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers

We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out

 

[rightwinger]

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.

A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.

I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands

Cronkite didn’t lose the war

The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war

 

[JGalt]

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.

A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.

I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands

Cronkite didn’t lose the war

The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war

There was no "easy victory with minimal casualties" in a war like that. The reason we lost our steam was because the media turned the American people against it.

Jut like they're trying to turn them against President Trump: Similarly in the trade war we're involved in, there will be no easy victory and there will be economic casualties.

But the media has already surrendered this country to the Chinese. They might as well be posing while sitting on Chinese anti-aircraft weapons like Hanoi Jane did.

 

[rightwinger]

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.

A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.

I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands

Cronkite didn’t lose the war

The war hawks who promised easy victory with minimal casualties lost the war

There was no "easy victory with minimal casualties" in a war like that. The reason we lost our steam was because the media turned the American people against it.

Jut like they're trying to turn them against President Trump: Similarly in the trade war we're involved in, there will be no easy victory and there will be economic casualties.

But the media has already surrendered this country to the Chinese. They might as well be posing while sitting on Chinese anti-aircraft weapons like Hanoi Jane did.

We lost our steam because we had no path to victory. The media was negligent in not condemning an unnecessary war from the start

 

[Camp]

Even though the cost was high, we did win in a way. Vietnam seems to have become more capitalist over the years. They manufacture alot of the stuff sold in Walmart, and they've become a tourist attraction.

I mean, compared to North Korea.

A North Vam General wrote a book and in it he stated that they were beat three times, but without the cease fires they would have had to lower the flag. The stopping of the war allowed them to restock and rearm and recruit new men and women......We never lost a fight or battle in Nam you could say we defeated ourselves.

I blame that shithead Walter Cronkite. He was the one who lost the war for us. From that point on, CBS couldn't be trusted.

Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands

It wasn't Cronkite's words on Feb. 28, 1968 alone that transformed American support for the War. The films of American soldiers stacked like cordwood on the back of a deuce and a half trucks became iconic images of what was happening in Vietnam to American boys. Ten days before Cronkite made his statement, the US military published casualties for Feb.11 thru Feb17. 543 Americans were killed in action in the six-day period.

 

[Desperado]

Vietnam was never winnable.
The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.

Bull. We could have easily won. We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US. There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.

So you are saying that the US efforts in Vietnam were worth the 40,000 American lives lost there? How did the US benefit from that fiasco?

 

[Camp]

Vietnam was never winnable.
The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.

Bull. We could have easily won. We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US. There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.

So you are saying that the US efforts in Vietnam were worth the 40,000 American lives lost there? How did the US benefit from that fiasco?

58,000 plus.

 

[Third Party]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.

I would agree with that. If Hitler had not attacked the Soviets. If Hitler had listened to the sound advice of his advisors. Any number of things.

I'm not sure what your point was there.

Regardless, This is debatable on many levels... but I think Stalin intended to rule the world. I've read a number of books on this, about the cold war. Stalin would routinely push one border, and then another, and then another.

If we had left Vietnam to fall, then it would have been just a matter of time before Stalin was pushing some other direction. And then we would have been roped into another fight. Or we would have let that fall, and Stalin would have pushed somewhere else.

And lets be real about this..... Stalin killed hundreds of millions of people. Stalin was just a less charismatic version of Hitler, and he would have had all of Europe under his control, if given the chance. That's the whole reason he carved up Poland with Hitler. He wanted control over the world as well.

So I suggest to you that as sucky as Vietnam was, it could have easily been much worse, if Stalin had started another western front battle in Europe. And that could have easily happened, with all the countries falling under the Soviet bloc, and with most of western Europe wiped out on infrastructure.... World War 3 could have happened in a decade or two from the end of WW2.

I would much rather Stalin bankrupt the Soviet resources in Vietnam, fighting a proxy war.

Of course I understand this is all speculation. It's impossible to tell what would have happened in the counter factual. But I think it's rather naive to think if we had just let the Soviets and Mao, dominate in Vietnam, that they would have said "ok! We have all we want! Let's have a tea party, and celebrate peace!".

No. I don't believe that anyone reading up on Stalin or Mao, would really believe that was a possible result from letting Vietnam fall.

Point is, politicians ran VietNam war like Hitler ran his war.

 

[Third Party]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.

hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
there is resistance everywhere
he's fighting in North Africa
he is still fighting Britain
Russia is too big--with a larger population

Stalin was prepared to offer Hitler the Ukraine and Balkans if Hitler stopped. Then Hitler diverted his troops. Who knows what the fate of Russia might have been?

 

[Andylusion]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

Hey, if Hitler let HIS military run things,he might have won. You pick the right wars to enter, that's part of the game-I personally think the Pope massaged Kennedy to save the South VietNam Catholics, just like he is pushing illegals down our throats to fill the pews today.

hitler is NOT winning a war against Russia
he still has troops in Norway/France/Balkans/etc etc etc
there is resistance everywhere
he's fighting in North Africa
he is still fighting Britain
Russia is too big--with a larger population

Uhhh.... I think that was his point. I think what the other poster was saying was that if Hitler had let his military run things, they would not have attacked everywhere at the same time. They might have never attacked Russia, or might have made a better choice in attacking Russia without getting caught in the winter. While again it would only be speculation, there is a case to be made that if the Germans had simply dug in completely, instead of pushing their attack in the winter, that they might have easily destroyed the Russians. Remember that Stalin had purged the crap out of his own military, and many of the people in command were inexperienced or incompetent but loyal.

But that was the prior posters point, was that Hitler was getting advice from all his military people, and he was ignoring it. That's why he was fighting in north Africa, and Britain, and has troops all over the place.

 

[Andylusion]

Vietnam was never winnable.
The US should never have been involved in another country's civil war.
American politicians are responsible for the death of over 40,000 American servicemen and God knows how many wounded.

Bull. We could have easily won. We were only stopped from winning, by evil America hating communist supporters here in the US. There is a reason that protests in the US were actively monitored and supported by the Soviets.

So you are saying that the US efforts in Vietnam were worth the 40,000 American lives lost there? How did the US benefit from that fiasco?

No, that's a very strange interpretation, and strange question.

The my statement was not.... "given how things were done, it was worth it".

The statement was made, we could not win. That is a false statement. Our military was far superior to the Vietnamese military by every possible measure. Our military defeated the Vietnamese military, in every engagement.

That does not mean that the way we fought the war, was the right way. It was most certainly not.

As I said before...... If you play football, and place rules on the game such as, your team is not allowed to move the ball past the 50 yard line, and there is no time limit. Under those rules, you will lose. Eventually the enemy with unlimited time, and zero risk of you scoring... they will win the game.

But they didn't win, because their team was better than your team. They won, because you had stupid rules that prevented you from winning.

That is my point.

So when you say the 40,000 or whatever lives lost...... of course not. But if you did not tie up our military with the endless rules and restrictions, there would not have been 40,000 lives lost.

The whole reason so many died, is because the left-wing in our country made them die. We prevent our military from killing the enemy. Flat out. What did you think was going to happen when you tell our soldiers that they can't go attack the enemy, but instead walk around in circles while the enemy is trying to kill them?

Again... go fight a boxing match. First let me tie your hands behind your back, and then I'll push you into the ring. Good luck.

If we had simply allowed our military to fight, we would have beaten the North Vietnamese in a year. No 40K or 50K people dying. Would not have happened. The reason we lost all those people, is because we didn't take the fight to the enemy. We just marched around in circles, and then complained about soldiers dying. Well duh. That's what happens when you never attack and defeat the enemy.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

we left because it was unwinnable

You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers

We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out

Bull. Not true. You are wrong sir. Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire. And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.

Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.

Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

we left because it was unwinnable

You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.

What would you have considered a win?

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers

We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out

Bull. Not true. You are wrong sir. Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire. And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.

Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.

Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.

What restrictions would you have lifted?

 

[harmonica]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

we left because it was unwinnable

You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.

hahahahha
so easy the French lost and the US

 

[harmonica]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

We didn’t leave because of the crap coming from left wingers

We left because we were in over our heads with no other way out

Bull. Not true. You are wrong sir. Even the bombing that Nixion authorized worked to push the North to work towards a ceasefire. And even with that bombing campaign, the military was constantly complaining that the restrictions were hampering their effectiveness.

Up to the very end, we had so many restrictions placed on our military by the people in our government.... that failure was the only possible outcome.

Rewind the tape, eliminate all the restrictions, let the military do it's job.... we would have won, and won without a fraction of the KIAs.

Bombing did not work in Britain, Japan, or Germany in WW2 with NO restrictions at all
and those countries were much more industrious
the vote to surrender after the Abombs in Japan was tied
we destroyed all of Japan's major cities = no surrender
bombed Germany night and day
Dresden and Hamburg burnt to the ground = no surrrender

....and Japan attacked US---Vietnam did not attack us.....we really have no reason to have a war against them = the US has no heart in the war = unwinnable

 

[Third Party]

Actually it was the military leadership lying to their Presidents and to the press, which is always stupid in a country with a free press, same as it was for Britain's governments over a hundred years or so. This made it easy for the commie friendly press to distort the war and spread bullshit propaganda at home. And yes, when Congress fecklessly abandoned the South Vietnamese govt. in 1975, it fell, and only then; they had two big countries supplying material and troops against a tiny half of country. In any event, by that time the Soviets had gone bankrupt and were on western life support, and couldn't exploit their Pyrrhic victory, and were toast as far as their imperialist dreams were concerned. We won the Cold War, and Viet Nam played a major role in bankrupting the Soviets, so it was a victory in the strategic sense.

Absolutely true. It just irritates me that while it was in fact a victory in any other sense.... there was heavy morale damage done by people saying that we lost.... when we most certainly did not.

And it still persists to this day. We did not lose. We left. There is a difference. It's like Bobby Fischer.

View attachment 275813
Remember when Bobby knew he was going to win already, but offered to concede? The other guy refused, and told him to keep play, and Bobby won. Because him leaving, is not the same as beating him.

We left the match. We left because of all this crap by left-wingers here in the US. If we had simply unshackled our military, we would have easily destroyed the North Vietnamese.

Even during the rolling thunder campaign by Nixion, the military was complaining about the restrictions on targets. You can't win a war, by having some blow hard politicians in Washington sitting there, micro managing "ok you can bomb that... but no you can't bomb that.... and you might be able to bomb that. I'll ask about it in a committee meeting next week".

You can't win with that. You have to let the military do the job. Or DO NOT DO THE JOB.

This is like Mogadishu. The military said to the government we need this and this, and that, and this, to do this job. The government said.... no, you don't need all that. So we rolled into Mogadishu with only partially equipped and armored units, and then got torn up by some half starving militia units.

You can't do it that way. Ridiculous.

we left because it was unwinnable

You have the right to be wrong. It was winnable. Very easily too.

What would you have considered a win?

What I used to hear was, "kill them all to make them free".