Vietnam War was unwinnable

[Dayton3]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

We had good reasons to do that.

 

[rightwinger]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

We had good reasons to do that.

DeGaulle told us to?

 

[Dick Foster]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

As far as I'm concerned France almost caused WWII with the treaty of Versailles after we had to save their worthless asses in WWI then we had to go back and save the stupid bastards again in WWII after they pretty much stirred all that shit up.

 

[Dick Foster]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

We had good reasons to do that.

DeGaulle told us to?

DeGaulle was a pumped up bag of hot air that never did anything but run his mouth. The only thing DeGaulle did was run to England and not surrender to the nazis.

 

[Dayton3]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

We had good reasons to do that.

DeGaulle told us to?

1) The U.S. thought France was owed something due to their occupation by the Nazis.
2) The U.S. which had no interest at all in being the superpower champion of the west to oppose the Soviet Union wanted to pump up the British and French to take on that role in the post World War Two world.

 

[harmonica]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

..I recommend A Bright Shining Lie
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting different results
--the French lost--as stated before--they said, thought and expected the same thing we did
--then we went in---we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the same results = INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have been 50,000 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--that was the US' fault

A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rightwinger]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

We had good reasons to do that.

DeGaulle told us to?

1) The U.S. thought France was owed something due to their occupation by the Nazis.
2) The U.S. which had no interest at all in being the superpower champion of the west to oppose the Soviet Union wanted to pump up the British and French to take on that role in the post World War Two world.

Vietnam was occupied by Japan and fought for liberation.......and we gave them to France?

 

[Flash]

I love to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats that only know what they see from Hollywood opine about Vietnam.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

..I recommend A Bright Shining Lie
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting different results
--the French lost....
--we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the same results = INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault

A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

 

[harmonica]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

.......WOW!!!!!! we get into a major war in Korea, and you want us to do the same thing with Vietnam????!!!!! only this one is going on for SEVEN years---and you want it to go on longer!!!!!!!!!??????????
insanity ...you people didn't learn from Korea

 

[rightwinger]

I love to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats that only know what they see from Hollywood opine about Vietnam.

Tell us more how we could have won if we only........tried a little harder

 

[Dick Foster]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North invaded in '74, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

We propped up a corrupt and inept South Vietnamese government for over a decade. We invested billions of dollars and 60,000 lives.
We provided them with state of the art military equipment and training. Even then, they were incapable of winning.

It was a Civil War that we never should have interfered with

After 1968 there was no insurgency, the viet cong were all DEAD. In 1975 the South was invaded by the North with 25 Divisions.

It was a CIVIL WAR for control of Vietnam. South and North was created by Western Powers.

That Civil War should have resulted in 100,000 deaths. Because the Western Powers got involved, it killed more than 2 million

They were better off without us

We agree on damn little but on this we do. It was francophillian fuckstics that got us into that friggin mess and we owe the arrogant friggin frogs not one damn thing. If anything they owe us. Stupid fucking frogs. Fight with their feet and fuck with their face.

France folded to a Nazi invasion and then did nothing to protect its Vietnamese colony from a Japanese takeover.

It was the people of Vietnam who fought the Japanese and fought for liberation. When it was all over, the US sided with the French over an independent Vietnam

We had good reasons to do that.

DeGaulle told us to?

1) The U.S. thought France was owed something due to their occupation by the Nazis.
2) The U.S. which had no interest at all in being the superpower champion of the west to oppose the Soviet Union wanted to pump up the British and French to take on that role in the post World War Two world.

France brought nazi occupation upon themselves. Hitler even made them drag the same train car used to sign the german surrender to France in WWI out for the French surrender to the nazis in WWII. That was a clear enough signal. If France and Britain hadn't been so arrogant and stupid in WWI Hitler and WWII never would have happened.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

 

[harmonica]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

..I recommend A Bright Shining Lie
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting different results
--the French lost....
--we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the same results = INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault

A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

hahahahahahahahahah
1. no we did not seal it off
2. I was talking about the South
3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
4. WTF are you talking about??
refer to the maps

 

[Turtlesoup]

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

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

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

..I recommend A Bright Shining Lie
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting different results
--the French lost....
--we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the same results = INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault

A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

hahahahahahahahahah
1. no we did not seal it off
2. I was talking about the South
3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
4. WTF are you talking about??
refer to the maps
View attachment 404451
View attachment 404450

We didn't need to seal off the RVN. All the supplies for the war in the RVN came from the PRVN. Seal off the PRVN which was easy to do and the supplies stop at their source. That's what forced the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Accords. North Vietnam couldn't produce anything, not even enough rice to feed itself. Everything for the war came across either the rail links into the People's Republic of China or through Haiphong Harbor on freighters from the USSR.

 

[harmonica]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

..I recommend A Bright Shining Lie
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting different results
--the French lost....
--we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the same results = INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault

A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

hahahahahahahahahah
1. no we did not seal it off
2. I was talking about the South
3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
4. WTF are you talking about??
refer to the maps
View attachment 404451
View attachment 404450

We didn't need to seal off the RVN. All the supplies for the war in the RVN came from the PRVN. Seal off the PRVN which was easy to do and the supplies stop at their source. That's what forced the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Accords. North Vietnam couldn't produce anything, not even enough rice to feed itself. Everything for the war came across either the rail links into the People's Republic of China or through Haiphong Harbor on freighters from the USSR.

wrong ..they didn't seal off anything
1. I just posted this before:
'''''the objective of many attacks by US Air Force and US Navy aircraft which would fail to destroy the bridge until 1972, even after hundreds of attacks''''
etc etc

Thanh Hóa Bridge - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

2. whatever you say we did, did not help at all--the North won
--doesn't matter if anything was signed--hahhahaha----

 

[Dayton3]

That's what Democrats want us to believe because Democrats were the ones who refused to honor our promise to South Vietnam that we would provide air support if North Vietnam violated the peace treaty and invaded. When the North launched a massive assault in 1974, the Democrats shamefully refused to authorize air support and handed the country over to the communists.

If we had stood by South Vietnam the way we stood by South Korea, South Vietnam would be a free and democratic nation today, and the bloodbath and tyranny that occurred when South Vietnam fell to the communists never would have happened.

I recommend Philip Jennings' book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War.

..I recommend A Bright Shining Lie
1. again, it's NOT a board game
2. Korea was much different politically, militarily, geographically, etc
-a. we could seal off Korea---a thin peninsula!!! couldn't do that with Vietnam
-b. the South had 3 heads of state changes in less than 2 years.... one was a MURDER!!..and many other attempted coups = very unstable/corrupt--the corruption went up and down not only politically but also in the military

..insanity is doing the same thing over and over--but expecting different results
--the French lost....
--we were there for over 7 years--more bombing than in WW2--and you want us to keep giving them air support--for how long????!! it would just give us the same results = INSANITY -waste/etc
..the North is not going to give up and the South is corrupt--with a shithead military

...if we had not been there, there would not have been the bloodbath after--but also, there would not have 50,00 US lives WASTED and over 1 MILLION other deaths
woooooooHOOOOOOO--you want to talk about a bloodbath???!!---yes--the was the US'fault

A Bright Shining Lie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

hahahahahahahahahah
1. no we did not seal it off
2. I was talking about the South
3. funny how you say we sealed it--yet we were still fighting in 1972 !!!!
4. WTF are you talking about??
refer to the maps
View attachment 404451
View attachment 404450

Without us controlling Cambodia and Laos, South Vietnam was indefensible. You can see that with any map. Including the ones you provided.

 

[Dayton3]

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

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

You have actual evidence of this?

 

[mikegriffith1]

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

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