NationStates Jolt Archive

This is how I see it:

After the Tet offensive, the Viet Cong were so decimated that they ceased to be a major player. After 68, the war effort was taken over the by north. By 1975, when the North invaded the South, the NVA (North Vietnamese) actually had to draft the sons of communist party members into the army, that's how serious their shortage of manpower was, and that's the only time they ever did that. All Gerald Ford had to do was what Nixon did in 72-bomb the hell out of the invading Army, and most likely the North would have given up and South Vietnam would be a democracy right now.

I think the main problem during that war was that the public was told that victory was around the corner too many times. Admittedly, it wasn't around the corner in 67, or 68, but it was in 72. And it was practically at the doorstep in 75. Eventually, the public said, "Enough", and lost the will to fight any longer.

Sure the US could have. It just would have cost much more than the public was willing to spend on the Yellow People.

the only way to have "won" would have been to kill all of the northvietnamese and the vietcong.

to the vietnamese it was a war against an alien invader just as the war against the french was. they would never give up.

sure we could have "won" but it would have been so shameful that we would regret it for the rest of human existence.

Yesnextquestion.

Certainly, it just would have cost a lot more than it was worth.

Depends what you mean by win

the only way to have "won" would have been to kill all of the northvietnamese and the vietcong.

to the vietnamese it was a war against an alien invader just as the war against the french was. they would never give up.

sure we could have "won" but it would have been so shameful that we would regret it for the rest of human existence.

Quoted for Truth.

Depends what you mean by win

In this case? An independent South Vietnam, not necessarily democratic, but yeah, whatever.

In this case? An independent South Vietnam, not necessarily democratic, but yeah, whatever.

when we left vietnam there WAS an independant semi-democratic south vietnam. it turned out that there was no popular will in the vietnamese people to have 2 seperate countries and the demoralized south vietnamese army was unable to keep the north from uniting the country through force.

when we left, nixon made a promise to the president of south vietnam that if the north should invade, the US would come back in. thankfully watergate ensued and kept nixon from fulfilling that promise. (if he could have gotten it past congress)

Could the US have won the War? Yes, absolutely if the politicians had let the military do the job we were trained and paid to do. However, you cannot win a war when you cannot bomb the enemy supply depots, bomb their ports, or pursue the enemy into their territory. The politicians in Washington decided they knew better how we should fight the war and the end result was we lost. :mad:

when we left vietnam there WAS an independant semi-democratic south vietnam. it turned out that there was no popular will in the vietnamese people to have 2 seperate countries and the demoralized south vietnamese army was unable to keep the north from uniting the country through force.

when we left, nixon made a promise to the president of south vietnam that if the north should invade, the US would come back in. thankfully watergate ensued and kept nixon from fulfilling that promise. (if he could have gotten it past congress)

What I mean is, we could have gutted and demoralized the NVA as well, leaving nothing but a smoking hulk in North Vietnam, but it would have taken a million men in country until the late seventies.

Could the US have won the War? Yes, absolutely if the politicians had let the military do the job we were trained and paid to do. However, you cannot win a war when you cannot bomb the enemy supply depots, bomb their ports, or pursue the enemy into their territory. The politicians in Washington decided they knew better how we should fight the war and the end result was we lost. :mad:

lost what?

our desire to force one country to be two countries? what sense would that make and how could such a victory stand? we would have to leave someday and then vietnam would have been reunited due to popular will.

Could the US have won the War? Yes, absolutely if the politicians had let the military do the job we were trained and paid to do. However, you cannot win a war when you cannot bomb the enemy supply depots, bomb their ports, or pursue the enemy into their territory. The politicians in Washington decided they knew better how we should fight the war and the end result was we lost. :mad:

WTF? America continually blew the shit out of Viet Nam and Washington made no attempt to stop it, in fact nearing the end of the war there was nothing but bombing going on. It wasn't the bombing that worried the people than in turn bothered Washington it was the amount of American troops being lost.

Yes, we could have.

The word is "genocide."

Yes, we could have.

The word is "genocide."

While that is one theoretical VVN scenario, it is not the only one. It's also the least likely one to occur.

What I mean is, we could have gutted and demoralized the NVA as well, leaving nothing but a smoking hulk in North Vietnam, but it would have taken a million men in country until the late seventies.

It took an intense bombing of the North (Linebacker II) to bring them back to the peace table, and had that bombing continued it would have brought them to their knees.

Why was there a need for victory? Why was the war started in the first place? It was a war of indepedence cracked up to be Communist plague.

WTF? America continually blew the shit out of Viet Nam and Washington made no attempt to stop it, in fact nearing the end of the war there was nothing but bombing going on. It wasn't the bombing that worried the people than in turn bothered Washington it was the amount of American troops being lost.

You are wrong. We did not start the bombing of the North until the North walked away from the "peace" table in Paris. Prior to that, we did not bomb the North we only bombed troops and supplies after they crossed over the border into the South. Nixon started the bombing of the North (Linebacker II) to force the North back to the negotiating table, and it worked.

Why was there a need for victory? Why was the war started in the first place? It was a war of indepedence cracked up to be Communist plague.

Did you ever hear of the Domino theory?

you have to ask if the U.S really lost Vietnam....

Why was there a need for victory? Why was the war started in the first place? It was a war of indepedence cracked up to be Communist plague.

A lot of the stuff involving Vietnam is really sad and based off of misunderstanding. The US saw the Vietnamese independence movement, and thought it was a Soviet stooge (which it wasn't), and because Ho Chi Minh had horrible press agents, we intervened. Once we intervened, Ho thought that we had come to Vietnam to turn it into a colony again(which we weren't going to), so he launched his own insurgent campaign against US troops. Tragic, sad misunderstanding.

Did you ever hear of the Domino theory?

Yep, and I think it's bullshit.

"Hey look! Our neighbours just got into a ridiculously costly war between a fundamentally flawed and a really screwed up ideology! Let's join the fun! And for kicks, we'll go with the fundamentally flawed one!"

A lot of the stuff involving Vietnam is really sad and based off of misunderstanding. The US saw the Vietnamese independence movement, and thought it was a Soviet stooge (which it wasn't), and because Ho Chi Minh had horrible press agents, we intervened. Once we intervened, Ho thought that we had come to Vietnam to turn it into a colony again(which we weren't going to), so he launched his own insurgent campaign against US troops. Tragic, sad misunderstanding.


good point.

AND since we were sure they were puppets of the soviets or maybe the chinese, we used it as an excuse for a proxy war against the communist bigwigs. there was no winning or losing possible since we werent fighting a real fight. there was just tragic loss of life, property and sanity on both sides.

we should also remember that we were not the worlds only superpower at the time. we had to keep in mind the soviets in everything we did around the world. no one wanted to be the one who stupidly started ww3.

Eventually, the public said, "Enough", and lost the will to fight any longer.
And that's one way of defining defeat.

Irrespective of who had the greater resources, the fact remains, the NVA owned the poorly led South Vietnamese forces, owned the US, and went on to own not only Cambodia, but China itself in 1979. The crushing defeat China suffered was a wake-up call shocking enough to spur yet more economic and military reforms.

I expect that people in the US will dream of what might have been for a very long time to come, so hard was the blow to its ego. But what happened happened - the USA lost to an enemy which, through far greater determination, was simply better.

It happens to a lot of people. Not the first time, and it won't be the last.

...But what happened happened - the USA lost to an enemy which, through far greater determination, was simply better.

Wrong! The US lost because of the politicians. They put so many restrictions on what the military could do it was impossible to win.

Wrong! The US lost because of the politicians. They put so many restrictions on what the military could do it was impossible to win.

Look, short of wiping out the populations of both North and South Vietnam, there was no possible military victory.

If the military had its hands untied only bad things could happen- thats the reason we have politicians, to make sure generals don't go apeshit with their 'toys'. No-one voted the generals into power. The only check/balance the public has against military 'freedom' is through elected officials -the politicians.

Like it or not, thats what democracy is all about.

Wrong! The US lost because of the politicians. They put so many restrictions on what the military could do it was impossible to win.

kudos to those politicians who finally realized that vietnam was a losing proposition and got us out before we did what it would have taken to win.

winning against people who werent our enemy with methods that would have been out of all proportion to their threat would have been no honor to the united states

sure we could have "won" but it would have been so shameful that we would regret it for the rest of human existence.

Heheh
You might have. I have better things to worry about.

may be

the only way to have "won" would have been to kill all of the northvietnamese and the vietcong.

to the vietnamese it was a war against an alien invader just as the war against the french was. they would never give up.

sure we could have "won" but it would have been so shameful that we would regret it for the rest of human existence.

You nailed it. It would have taken genocide to "win" that war, and frankly, I'm glad we weren't up to the task. What we engaged in was bad enough.

Look, short of wiping out the populations of both North and South Vietnam, there was no possible military victory.

Where do you get that? Support for Democracy was fairly strong in South Vietnam, just like it is in North Korea today. The simple fact is that the Communist parties in question terrorize their civilians into obedience. That would be why people still risk their lives to cross the border in Korea. I mean, there's the good life, and people beating you down and stealing your possessions legally. Now, if our troops hadn't done some of the same things in Vietnam, we could have built up even more support.

Look, short of wiping out the populations of both North and South Vietnam, there was no possible military victory.

If the military had its hands untied only bad things could happen- thats the reason we have politicians, to make sure generals don't go apeshit with their 'toys'. No-one voted the generals into power. The only check/balance the public has against military 'freedom' is through elected officials -the politicians.

Like it or not, thats what democracy is all about.

And ploiticians should never, ever put the military into a war and when things are not going as well as they expected, tell the military how to do their job. You either let the military fight the war to win or get them the hell out. :mad:

Where do you get that?
Oh you know, the fact of being unable to tell friend from foe after a few years....

The Viet Minh/Cong operating freely through the South...

Things like that.

kudos to those politicians who finally realized that vietnam was a losing proposition and got us out before we did what it would have taken to win.

That one politician was President Richard Nixon and I have a hell of a lot of respect for him.

Where do you get that? Support for Democracy was fairly strong in South Vietnam, just like it is in North Korea today. The simple fact is that the Communist parties in question terrorize their civilians into obedience. That would be why people still risk their lives to cross the border in Korea. I mean, there's the good life, and people beating you down and stealing your possessions legally. Now, if our troops hadn't done some of the same things in Vietnam, we could have built up even more support.

there was a reasonable amount of support for democracy in south vietnam. but there wasnt much democracy in the government of south vietnam and there was very little desire for being a seperate country from the north.

its similar in korea where there is democracy and capitalism popularly supported in the south and dictatorship/communism in the north but the koreans would dearly love to be one country again.

when the day comes that the south would not be subjected to the horrors of the government of north korea, there will again be one korea.

And ploiticians should never, ever put the military into a war and when things are not going as well as they expected, tell the military how to do their job. You either let the military fight the war to win or get them the hell out. :mad:

The military is just another branch of the political sphere. Like it or not.

Certain generals during Vietnam were also around during the Cuban Missile Crisis (LeMay, Wheeler etc etc). That same attitude of "let us do our job unhindered" nearly caused the launching of nuclear weapons. Their bloodlust needed to be checked.

America should revel in the fact its public can control its military- and the country is not a military state.

That one politician was President Richard Nixon and I have a hell of a lot of respect for him.

The same Richard Nixon who had a secret plan to get us out of the war in 1968 and yet kept us in it until 1975, and under whose leadership, we doubled the number of dead US soldiers? You respect that?

That one politician was President Richard Nixon and I have a hell of a lot of respect for him.

that makes one of us.

we should also remember that we were not the worlds only superpower at the time. we had to keep in mind the soviets in everything we did around the world. no one wanted to be the one who stupidly started ww3.

Quite true, a veil of fear had been drawn before the eyes of the US, and because of that handicap our government made several poor decisions that are commonly mistaken for malice.

The same Richard Nixon who had a secret plan to get us out of the war in 1968 and yet kept us in it until 1975, and under whose leadership, we doubled the number of dead US soldiers? You respect that?

Nixon did not serve in office until 1969. The war was pretty much over for the US by February 1973. Lindon Johnson was the one who expanded the war then couldn't figure out how to end it.

# 3.5 Richard Nixon and Vietnam (1969–1974)

* 3.5.1 Vietnamization
* 3.5.2 My Lai massacre
* 3.5.3 Pentagon Papers
* 3.5.4 Cambodian incursion and the Kent State Massacre (1970)
* 3.5.5 Laos incursion (1971)
* 3.5.6 1972 election and the Christmas Bombings
* 3.5.7 Paris Peace Accords (1973)

# 3.6 Gerald Ford and Vietnam (1974–1975)

* 3.6.1 Total U.S. withdrawal
* 3.6.2 Final North Vietnamese offensive
* 3.6.3 Fall of Saigon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

The US was incapable of fighting a guerilla war. A conventional war, yes, but not a guerilla war. It would take too many changes in tactics and ability. Dropping bombs won't work very well on the deep tunnels that the North had built and the US soldiers had a hard time telling who was from the North and who was from the South when they entered villages.

Nixon did not serve in office until 1969. The war was pretty much over for the US by February 1973. Lindon Johnson was the one who expanded the war then couldn't figure out how to end it.

# 3.5 Richard Nixon and Vietnam (1969–1974)

* 3.5.1 Vietnamization
* 3.5.2 My Lai massacre
* 3.5.3 Pentagon Papers
* 3.5.4 Cambodian incursion and the Kent State Massacre (1970)
* 3.5.5 Laos incursion (1971)
* 3.5.6 1972 election and the Christmas Bombings
* 3.5.7 Paris Peace Accords (1973)

# 3.6 Gerald Ford and Vietnam (1974–1975)

* 3.6.1 Total U.S. withdrawal
* 3.6.2 Final North Vietnamese offensive
* 3.6.3 Fall of Saigon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_WarCeltlund, I wasn't even alive until November of 1968 and even I know that a major part of Nixon's platform was his "secret plan for peace in Vietnam." And while he was president, US dead went from 29K to 58K. Now there's no question that Johnson was responsible for escalation and most of the bullshit that Vietnam became, but Nixon was hardly blameless once he took office.

Wrong! The US lost because of the politicians. They put so many restrictions on what the military could do it was impossible to win.
LOL, the US military acted in pretty much unrestrained fashion in Vietnam. There was no UN rules of engagement bullshit, soldiers shot at what they liked, routinely at civilians and South Vietnamese because it's "better safe than sorry", and reported whatever bodycount they could get away with. Some subsequently admitted they simply lied to make life easier, and the people up the chain of command didn't know any better.

The bombing was even more useless. They had the freedom to bomb not only Vietnam, but Laos and Cambodia too (in secret). Trouble is, bombing jungle and hoping you had hit something, was a waste of resources from the start.

Not to mention the soldiers were often conscripts who got sent back home the moment they had finally gained sufficient experience.

Whereas the North Vietnamese were committed in a way the US never was, neither at home, nor politically, nor even militarily. The better side won. For it to have been otherwise, the US would have had to fight the war using a different army, in different terrain, and possessing a whole different cultural mindset. There is no way a different result would have been achieved had some minor policy issue been tweaked at a crucial moment. The US could have won a different war - not this one.

LOL, the US military acted in pretty much unrestrained fashion in Vietnam. There was no UN rules of engagement bullshit, soldiers shot at what they liked, routinely at civilians and South Vietnamese because it's "better safe than sorry", and reported whatever bodycount they could get away with. Some subsequently admitted they simply lied to make life easier, and the people up the chain of command didn't know any better.

Sorry TG...

Thats not the way it happened according to what Ive learned.
Learning gained by talking to the people who were there, not just in some book...

Ask why US pilots were ordered to bomb the same target in Hanoi, over and over again, even though it was never really of any military use...

Ask why the "open arms" treaties worked against the US soldiers.

The US Military was kept on a leash.
Thats a fact.

It wasnt just a leash, it was also being kept ignorant.

Celtlund, I wasn't even alive until November of 1968 and even I know that a major part of Nixon's platform was his "secret plan for peace in Vietnam." And while he was president, US dead went from 29K to 58K. Now there's no question that Johnson was responsible for escalation and most of the bullshit that Vietnam became, but Nixon was hardly blameless once he took office.
Well, considering your age, I can understand. I was old enough to vote for Nixon, and don't remember his "secret plan," but that doesn't mean it wasn't a part of his platform just that I don't remember it. Yes, the number of deaths rose, as they would have no matter who was President if we remained in Viet Nam, so you cannot blame that on the President.

The main problem was the Congress started getting their fingers into things. A very vocal minority of "Peace Protesters" got the attention of Congress who was afraid they would not be reelected if they didn't do something. That something was to cut funds and tell the military they could not carry the war to the North.

I remember it well as I was in the Air Force at the time. In fact, I was stationed at Utapao AB, Thailand working on the B-52's during Linebacker II and "rotated" back to the states in March 1983. That was what brought the North back to the "Peace Table" in Paris and allowed the US to get out of Viet Nam. If Nixon had not done what he did, many more lives would have been lost. If Johnson or Nixon had done a Linebacker II operation much earlier, it is very possible a cease-fire would have been put into place and we would have ended up with a divided Viet Nam similar to Korea.

LOL, the US military acted in pretty much unrestrained fashion in Vietnam. There was no UN rules of engagement bullshit, soldiers shot at what they liked, routinely at civilians and South Vietnamese because it's "better safe than sorry", and reported whatever bodycount they could get away with. Some subsequently admitted they simply lied to make life easier, and the people up the chain of command didn't know any better.

The bombing was even more useless. They had the freedom to bomb not only Vietnam, but Laos and Cambodia too (in secret). Trouble is, bombing jungle and hoping you had hit something, was a waste of resources from the start.

Not to mention the soldiers were often conscripts who got sent back home the moment they had finally gained sufficient experience.

Whereas the North Vietnamese were committed in a way the US never was, neither at home, nor politically, nor even militarily. The better side won. For it to have been otherwise, the US would have had to fight the war using a different army, in different terrain, and possessing a whole different cultural mindset. There is no way a different result would have been achieved had some minor policy issue been tweaked at a crucial moment. The US could have won a different war - not this one.

You are very wrong. I don't have to read the history books to find out what happened. I lived it and what you are saying about the military being unrestrained is rubbish. By the way, the UN does not establish rules of engagement for the US military or any other military not under their direct command. The Genevia Convention was in effect during Viet Nam.

The US Military was kept on a leash.
Thats a fact.

It wasnt just a leash, it was also being kept ignorant.

You got that right.

The US could have won if:
-it had increased troop number to a high enough level to invade North Vietnam
-it invaded North Vietnam
-created a better PR/Propaganda Machine to convince the civilians that the war isn't that bad etc. etc.

The US could have won if:

-created a better PR/Propaganda Machine to convince the civilians that the war isn't that bad etc. etc.
The quest for a chemical process to sugarcoat napalm continues... :p

Basically the war was won. In my opinion it was the lack of resolve from the American press and the citizens themselves. But I also wonder if we would have taken of the North by occupation if the Chinese would not have marched in as they did in Korea. If that would have happened we may have well had a nuclear war as a result.

The quest for a chemical process to sugarcoat napalm continues... :p

nothing wrong with napalm if you are the one requesting its use on an enemy position.

Well, considering your age, I can understand. I was old enough to vote for Nixon, and don't remember his "secret plan," but that doesn't mean it wasn't a part of his platform just that I don't remember it. Yes, the number of deaths rose, as they would have no matter who was President if we remained in Viet Nam, so you cannot blame that on the President.

My point is that in 1968, Nixon claimed he had a way to get the US out of the war, and yet he did nothing to implement that plan until he had no real option left in 1972-3. If he'd been honest in that claim, he could have gotten the US out by late 1969, early 1970 at the latest. Nixon inherited Vietnam, no question, but he wasn't in that big a hurry to get out of there, either.

My point is that in 1968, Nixon claimed he had a way to get the US out of the war, and yet he did nothing to implement that plan until he had no real option left in 1972-3. If he'd been honest in that claim, he could have gotten the US out by late 1969, early 1970 at the latest. Nixon inherited Vietnam, no question, but he wasn't in that big a hurry to get out of there, either.

Of course. Because moving hundreds of thousands of troops and their associated equipment out of a warzone can be done in just a couple of months.

If you look at the history books - I wasn't alive at this time - US soldiers won almost every single military engagement against the North Vietnamese. However, things like media reporting on the Tet Offensive (which ended in a US and South Vietnamese victory) gave the impression things were going much worse than they actually were.

The other major problem was draftees were rotated out after a year of service. First off, this led to things like guys refusing to follow orders and fragging their officers, because they didn't want to risk their lives very close to going home. While not a massive problem, it was definitely a factor.

If you look at the history books - I wasn't alive at this time - US soldiers won almost every single military engagement against the North Vietnamese. However, things like media reporting on the Tet Offensive (which ended in a US and South Vietnamese victory) gave the impression things were going much worse than they actually were.

That's correct. The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost in public opinion and politically; in fact, the North Vietnamese had nearly 4 times as many soldiers killed as the US/South Koreans and a similar number of wounded. Combine that with a repressive South Vietnamese government, severe civilian casualties, and massive devastation of the economy and infrastructure of Vietnam and it's pretty clear how the situation deteriorated.

Guerilla wars are not easy to fight especially when combined with a draft; the psychological damage inflicted by fighting such a war, the escalating cost, and the lack of a direct threat to the US all sapped the will of people to continue the fight. The North Vietnamese were able to wear the US down by launching symbolic battles even though they lost the strategic ones; the Viet Cong were able to shape public opinion to win the war for them. All they had to do was maintain its resistace until the US was worn down psychologically and they would win.

It's actually quite similar to the invasion of Vietnam by the Ming Dynasty of China in the 15th century.

I don't think they could have, and most important of all, they didn't anyway. Everything else is Republican mutual masturbation and armchair quarterbacking.

The US could have won if:
-it had increased troop number to a high enough level to invade North Vietnam
-it invaded North Vietnam
-created a better PR/Propaganda Machine to convince the civilians that the war isn't that bad etc. etc.

The problem was that an invasion would most likely prompt a Chinese response. It was considered too risky, and then the North would just further north or west and establish bases through which they could infiltrate Vietnam.

I don't think they could have, and most important of all, they didn't anyway. Everything else is Republican mutual masturbation and armchair quarterbacking.
Reminds me of the ex-footballer in Napoleon Dynamite, Uncle Rico. Stuck in 1982, wondering what could have been, had he been given the chance to play during a particular game. :p

America didn't have to kill every Kraut or Jap in WW2 to win. America didn't have to kill every gook either.
Did you really have to go with the ethnic slurs?

America didn't have to kill every Kraut or Jap in WW2 to win. America didn't have to kill every gook either.

Comparing World War II with Vietnam or Afghanistan?

How about comparing apple juice with quantum physics?

Perhaps if soldiers could actually do their jobs without having to go through Washington for every little decision. Or perhaps if they could actually bomb North Vietnam's cities to disrupt production. Or perhaps if there was competant leadership in Vietnam to begin with. Perhaps if Johnson wasn't trying to work both Vietnam and his "Great Society" at the same time...

Or perhaps if they could actually bomb North Vietnam's cities to disrupt production.
They weren't really producing anything. Their kit was coming from China, sometimes via Laos or Cambodia, a lot of it originally produced in Russia for export.

One of the key characteristics of proxy wars is that neither side can hit the enemy's actual base. Otherwise it's not a proxy war anymore.

They weren't really producing anything. Their kit was coming from China, sometimes via Laos or Cambodia, a lot of it originally produced in Russia for export.

One of the key characteristics of proxy wars is that neither side can hit the enemy's actual base. Otherwise it's not a proxy war anymore.

May not have been truly crippling but it would have been better than bombing some "critical" bridge in the jungle that just gets rebuilt in under a week. Priorities were really screwed up.

All Gerald Ford had to do was what Nixon did in 72-bomb the hell out of the invading Army, and most likely the North would have given up and South Vietnam would be a democracy right now.

Perhaps right now, but only after 30 years of US backed dictatorship (see: Indonesia and Philippines). You know, the guy who lost the democratically held elections before the US intervened? I guess you can't let people elect someone without the best interest of the US in mind.

Yes, I think the USA could have won the Vietnam war, but as others have said, I don't think the price would have been worth paying.

As it was, the rules of engagement (that the USA set themselves) made it impossible for them to achieve victory.

The US could have won, if the war had been fought properly. The British defeat of MRLA in "the Emergency" should have served as a blueprint for the US.

The US could have won, if the war had been fought properly. The British defeat of MRLA in "the Emergency" should have served as a blueprint for the US.

For a while it did (the Strategic Hamlet thing was a half-assed parody of how Malaysia was done).

1. The US should never use draftees. They suck. Period.
2. The US should never fight a long war that requires public committment. We lose that sort of war, even if we enjoy 100% tactical victory.
3. Fighting an insurgency and winning requires a certain level of human rights abuse that is passe today. You know, relocating people, torturing prisoners, paying informants, running midnight execution campaigns, etc.
4. Winning a war today requires sucking the dick of the mainstream media - if you aren't doing that, they'll fuck you in the ass every hour, on the hour, with Photoshopped pictures if your troops aren't stupid enough to do stupid things.

Yes the war could have been won if the intentions were to win the war from the get go. LBJ never had intentions as such when he sent boys over in '65 and Nixon was too foolish to figure anything out until Linebacker was authorized. Too many people used the war to say that they weren't "Soft on Communism" but in reality they never wanted the war won.

Perhaps if soldiers could actually do their jobs without having to go through Washington for every little decision. Or perhaps if they could actually bomb North Vietnam's cities to disrupt production. Or perhaps if there was competant leadership in Vietnam to begin with. Perhaps if Johnson wasn't trying to work both Vietnam and his "Great Society" at the same time...

Guns and butter...Johnson/Nixon policies were also responsible for stagflation, which lasted for years after they left office.

Did you really have to go with the ethnic slurs?

Some people are slugs. He is one of them. :mad:

They weren't really producing anything. Their kit was coming from China, sometimes via Laos or Cambodia, a lot of it originally produced in Russia for export.

One of the key characteristics of proxy wars is that neither side can hit the enemy's actual base. Otherwise it's not a proxy war anymore.

A lot of their war materials came in to Haipong harbor from the USSR. I remember after one bombing raid the newspapers said the Russians were complaining because we had "damaged" one of their ships in the harbor. That night at work a Lt. Col. told me, "Hell, we didn't damage one we sank one and damaged two others."

MCLMM]For a while it did (the Strategic Hamlet thing was a half-assed parody of how Malaysia was done).

Yes indeed. But there were lots of other COIN basics that were forgotten or done in half-assed fashion.

The US forces were, for the most part, over burdened with equipment. Time and again, successful COIN warfare has shown you carry as little as possible, so you can move fast and light on the ground when you're chasing guerrillas through the Jungle. SEAL, SOG, and LRRP teams (and other similar units) did this in Vietnam, and they were man for man the most successful units in locating and destroying the enmeny.

You have to patrol agressively - staying out in the boonies for extended periods of time. This keeps the guerrillas off balance, on the run, and unable to resupply. Most US forces in Vietnam didn't do this.

Sticking to the fire bases also allowed the guerrillas to harrass/terrorize the the civilian poulation. Strategic Hamlets, CIDG, and other similar programs were sometimes not well implemented, and were certainly underdone.

You absolutely have to offer a better political solution. The US did this in the Banana wars and the Philippines, to some extent, but almost not at all in Vietnam. Forcing the RVN government to clean house and make nice would have been a major step towards victory.

Intelligence and especially counter-intelligence are even more important than usual. The US and especially the RNV had very bad problems with security.

Negotiate, bribe, offer generous terms for switching sides, and all that sort of good stuff. All of that was done on a small scale, but should have been done much more extensively.

If you still aren't winning, then you have to go nasty - "drain the pond" internment camps, hostage taking, death squads, etc. Again the US did that to some extent (Pheonix program, MACVSOG), and yet again it wasn't done on an effective scale.

(And it's interesting to note that much of this was done properly in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq, and then compare how much more successful the US has been in Afghanistan than it has been in Iraq.)


MCLMM]1. The US should never use draftees. They suck. Period.
2. The US should never fight a long war that requires public committment. We lose that sort of war, even if we enjoy 100% tactical victory.
3. Fighting an insurgency and winning requires a certain level of human rights abuse that is passe today. You know, relocating people, torturing prisoners, paying informants, running midnight execution campaigns, etc.
4. Winning a war today requires sucking the dick of the mainstream media - if you aren't doing that, they'll fuck you in the ass every hour, on the hour, with Photoshopped pictures if your troops aren't stupid enough to do stupid things.

For #3 that depends. Winning a COIN war can be done w/o resorting to nasty tactics, but that's less common.

To win a war against an indiginous geurilla army requires
1) Extreme brutality

or

2) The support of the native population at large. The US was hated by many Vietnamese, with good reason, giving the Viet Mihn a recruitment pool, giving them a peasent background they could blend into to hide, and making informents much less frequent.


It's terrible how long that war went on before the US finally left.

To some extents we did win.
Communism did not reach its dirty tentacles down to New Zealand or Australia, though yes we did not hold South Vietnam.

Honestly a large part of the blame rests with Britain, 2 World Wars and numerous other conflicts us Antipodeians stepped up for England, and when we needed their help where were they?
Sipping Tea and scoffing down Lamingtons!

To win a war against an indiginous geurilla army requires
1) Extreme brutality

or

2) The support of the native population at large. The US was hated by many Vietnamese, with good reason, giving the Viet Mihn a recruitment pool, giving them a peasent background they could blend into to hide, and making informents much less frequent.


It's terrible how long that war went on before the US finally left.

The really bad thing is that the US could have gone in and done it right. We were doing it right originally - JFK was modeling his war plans on the British Malay Emergency. The use of the USSF was exactly what should have been happening. Instead, that SOB LBJ escalated it and turned over the war to the regular military, who were ill suited for COIN. (Oh, and before some inquring mind asks, COIN = COunter-INsurgency, ie anti-guerrilla, operations or warfare.)

In 20/20 hindsight, if we go back to the 40s, we should have simply told the French (and Brits) to fuck off and not retake their colonies, while supporting the iundependance movements (like FDR had wanted). That would have saved a lot of grief.

The US was doomed from the start, speaking in realistic terms.

1) They were defending an oppressive regime.
2) They had no clue how to fight a real insurgency.
3) They were fighting with real troops in what should have been a proxy war.
4) They were using draftees.
5) They were too moral to be brutal, but supporting a government that made it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the nation.
6) They were fighting a war at home because of the draft.

2) They had no clue how to fight a real insurgency.

Not completely true. The knowledge base for good COIN was existed. It was simply ignored.

The US has a very hit and miss record with that. We were very successful in the Philippines and the Banana Wars. The USMC especially did well in the Banana Wars, and the lessons were compiled in a nifty little book called The Small Wars Manual (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/swm/index.htm). The lessons from those and other wars seem to get forgotten every so often by those in command.

And that's whay it's only "not exactly true". The top leadership's ignoring and ignorance of proper COIN tactics does amount to those who are implementing policy having no clue.

If the people who knew what they were doing had been allowed to do their job, like JFK had planned, the other steps you mentioned would have either fallen in line or been rendered moot.

Did you really have to go with the ethnic slurs?

It's RockTheCasbah, so of course he had to. It's how he gets his jollys. Haven't you worked that out yet?

This is how I see it:

After the Tet offensive, the Viet Cong were so decimated that they ceased to be a major player. After 68, the war effort was taken over the by north. By 1975, when the North invaded the South, the NVA (North Vietnamese) actually had to draft the sons of communist party members into the army, that's how serious their shortage of manpower was, and that's the only time they ever did that. All Gerald Ford had to do was what Nixon did in 72-bomb the hell out of the invading Army, and most likely the North would have given up and South Vietnam would be a democracy right now.

I think the main problem during that war was that the public was told that victory was around the corner too many times. Admittedly, it wasn't around the corner in 67, or 68, but it was in 72. And it was practically at the doorstep in 75. Eventually, the public said, "Enough", and lost the will to fight any longer.

Well i think you miss something.The dead,and the living.
The living write history,however the day where bush's son come to play is here now.
You could rewrite history but sure you will have to get your son to fight about it....
Anyway all war are lost.Look at it,like a huge lie.
The one you want to believe in

The "PUBLIC" IS ALSO THE ONE WHO DIES

The really bad thing is that the US could have gone in and done it right. We were doing it right originally - JFK was modeling his war plans on the British Malay Emergency. The use of the USSF was exactly what should have been happening. Instead, that SOB LBJ escalated it and turned over the war to the regular military, who were ill suited for COIN. (Oh, and before some inquring mind asks, COIN = COunter-INsurgency, ie anti-guerrilla, operations or warfare.)

In 20/20 hindsight, if we go back to the 40s, we should have simply told the French (and Brits) to fuck off and not retake their colonies, while supporting the iundependance movements (like FDR had wanted). That would have saved a lot of grief.

The second part I agree with completely. But we wanted to keep France in the UN, which required a little you scratch my back I'll scratch your diplomacy.

The way we did it, Viet Nam was a clusterfuck, both morally and stratigicly.


5) They were too moral to be brutal...

This I disagree with to a certain extent.

This is how I see it:

After the Tet offensive, the Viet Cong were so decimated that they ceased to be a major player. After 68, the war effort was taken over the by north. By 1975, when the North invaded the South, the NVA (North Vietnamese) actually had to draft the sons of communist party members into the army, that's how serious their shortage of manpower was, and that's the only time they ever did that. All Gerald Ford had to do was what Nixon did in 72-bomb the hell out of the invading Army, and most likely the North would have given up and South Vietnam would be a democracy right now.

I think the main problem during that war was that the public was told that victory was around the corner too many times. Admittedly, it wasn't around the corner in 67, or 68, but it was in 72. And it was practically at the doorstep in 75. Eventually, the public said, "Enough", and lost the will to fight any longer.



The Vietnames Generals pretty much admitted this. The war protestors weakened our will, and we pulled out. 2 million people died as a result. Hope you leftists like the blood all over your movement's hands.

Hope you leftists like the blood all over your movement's hands.
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Here's a question for everyone though: Could it have been a good thing the Vietnam War turned out the way it did? Didn't the US learn a lot about what it means to be a superpower? Didn't it do a lot for the development of US society as a whole? Didn't it perhaps prevent other stupidities that could've led to the world being blown up?

The Vietnames Generals pretty much admitted this. The war protestors weakened our will, and we pulled out. 2 million people died as a result. Hope you leftists like the blood all over your movement's hands.
Yes, the US could have fought indefinitely...

Winning however required severing the connection of the people with the movement…

This could not be done in the way the war was fought. Destroying the entire population would have helped, as would winning the hearts and minds of the people.

The US was not in a position to win, only to destroy…

I believe that if "Operation Rolling Thunder" had been extended to all targets when it began the war could have been won. Jognson's refusal to bomb Hanoi and its port allowed many millions of tonnes of arms and supplies to be imprted and anti air defenses to be improved. Then again, covering up such mishaps as My Lai wopuld have kept public opinion more pro-war.

This I disagree with to a certain extent.

Brutality is what the Nazi's used in areas they gained control of. Brutality is what the French used to win colonial wars. Brutality was what the Japanese visited upon foes in World War II. Brutality is what the Romans used to prevent conquered territory from rising agianst them (Do you know where the word "decimating" came from?).

The US never practiced this.

There were war crimes. They were not carried out for strategic value, they were the product of frustration and trauma.

Napalm and Agent Orange were awful, but the effects of Agent Orange were unknown.

I am almost glad that the U.S. "lost" the Vietnam war.

Taking a nation of one people, and splitting it into two ideologically opposed entities doesn't seem to work very well.

We "won" in Korea (or at least we didn't lose), and look at that situation now.

Sure the US could have. It just would have cost much more than the public was willing to spend on the Yellow People.
And it could also have had tried to win the support of the people in Vietnam. One of the reasons why it lost, was because the Communist North Vietnam faction had better leaders, and propagandists.

The second part I agree with completely. But we wanted to keep France in the UN, which required a little you scratch my back I'll scratch your diplomacy.

As I said, in 20/20 hindsight we should have told the French to screw off.

The way we did it, Viet Nam was a clusterfuck, both morally and stratigicly.

Yep.

Here's a question for everyone though: Could it have been a good thing the Vietnam War turned out the way it did? Didn't the US learn a lot about what it means to be a superpower? Didn't it do a lot for the development of US society as a whole? Didn't it perhaps prevent other stupidities that could've led to the world being blown up?

Nope. I'd go in to this more, but I have to get off line soon.

The Vietnames Generals pretty much admitted this. The war protestors weakened our will, and we pulled out. 2 million people died as a result. Hope you leftists like the blood all over your movement's hands.

If only it could be solely laid at the protesters feet. The politicians and generals who fucked it up in the first place, well before the protesters hit their stride. (It was the fuck ups that resulted in a futile the war effort, which was one of the points that resulted in the non-extremists turning against the war - much like with Iraq today.)


I am almost glad that the U.S. "lost" the Vietnam war.

Taking a nation of one people, and splitting it into two ideologically opposed entities doesn't seem to work very well.

We "won" in Korea (or at least we didn't lose), and look at that situation now.

That wasn't the US. Those fault lines existed beforehand.

The Vietnames Generals pretty much admitted this. The war protestors weakened our will, and we pulled out. 2 million people died as a result. Hope you leftists like the blood all over your movement's hands.

As opposed to the 5 million that were killed by the US durring the war? Already the pro-war side has us outkilled by about 5 million. Factor in all those undocumented deaths, executions, the far reaching effects of Agent Orange and Agent White, Kissinger's plan of bombing damns to starve the rual peasent population, those murdered by the South Vietmanese government, and you don't have a moral leg to stand on.

Brutality is what the Nazi's used in areas they gained control of. Brutality is what the French used to win colonial wars. Brutality was what the Japanese visited upon foes in World War II. Brutality is what the Romans used to prevent conquered territory from rising agianst them (Do you know where the word "decimating" came from?).

The US never practiced this.

There were war crimes. They were not carried out for strategic value, they were the product of frustration and trauma.

Napalm and Agent Orange were awful, but the effects of Agent Orange were unknown.

I refer you to the points I mentioned above. Agent White was created for one reason and one reason alone: to kill rice and spread famine. Also, see Kissinger's plan to bomb damns instead of villages. Less public backlash, more effective draining of the Viet Mihn's recruitment pool.
And let's not forget the South Vietnamese government it's self. Run by a man from New York City. You know all those Bhuddist monks setting fire to themselves in city streets? That was in protest of the brutal South Vietmanese government.

The US in Viet Nam was brutal indeed, and as a matter of policy. They just did their damndest to keep it from the public.

That wasn't the US. Those fault lines existed beforehand.

Unlike Viet Nam, which was a single undevided nation with a democratically elected ruller, untill the US created South Viet Nam and placed a New Yorker at the head of a brutal, opressive government.

Didn't the US learn a lot about what it means to be a superpower? Didn't it do a lot for the development of US society as a whole? Didn't it perhaps prevent other stupidities that could've led to the world being blown up?

Jury's still out on that one. Unfortunately.

That wasn't the US. Those fault lines existed beforehand.
Unlike Viet Nam, which was a single undevided nation with a democratically elected ruller, untill the US created South Viet Nam and placed a New Yorker at the head of a brutal, opressive government.

To make myself as clear as possible, the fault lines I referred to were those in Vietnam. There were religious, political, and ethnic divides among the various nationalist movements long before the US ever came to be involved in Vietnam.

for the purpose of argument. America Didnt lose vietnam in the traditional sense. Hold on let me check my history book......okay, America got Hanoi to agree to a Cease fire, in 73' effectively ending the war. The war was over. We were gone, all we had left was the embacy. In 75 the NVA attacked again breaking the cease fire. This became known as the Fall of Saigon. Americans were so tired of War and death that We did not go back in. We evacuated our embassies and left. Politically we lost, but technically we won the war.

The US was doomed from the start, speaking in realistic terms.

1) They were defending an oppressive regime.
2) They had no clue how to fight a real insurgency.
3) They were fighting with real troops in what should have been a proxy war.
4) They were using draftees.
5) They were too moral to be brutal, but supporting a government that made it impossible to win the hearts and minds of the nation.
6) They were fighting a war at home because of the draft.

which war do you speak of?

THey werent defending a regime they were defending democracy.

This wasnt insurgency it was guerilla warfare, there is a differance.

Fighting with real troops, as upposed to what? getting Ho Chi Min and Nixon to go at it in a few rounds of BattleShip to solve it? hell that woulda worked for me, think of the lives that it would have saved.

Draftess well yeah, they didnt want to be there, and i find it how ironic that people would stop writing to their loved ones who were soldiers cause it was Immoral, and they would call people who had lost children in the war and say how happy they were that their son died because he was a babykiller.

Brutality has its uses, but at what cost?


They werent fighting a war at home, they were fighting a war in which both sides hated them. The south were just as willing to shoot us as the North was, if we had turned around and shot the south troops i bet the North woulda Thanked us fought along side us and sent us a glorious send off.

"We're shooting the wrong Gooks if you ask me." Meat- Full Metal Jacket.




The Generals were stupid and never established a Front. We went on search and destroy missions, and then pull out again, we should of had a front and pushed them back into the North.

This wasnt insurgency it was guerilla warfare, there is a differance.

Err... it was both. Or did you forget about the NLF?

The Generals were stupid and never established a Front. We went on search and destroy missions, and then pull out again, we should of had a front and pushed them back into the North.

While seach and destroy was not the right tactic, fighting Vietnam as a conventional war with fronts was not either.

Maybe if they cared more about winning the war then helping the war producers make money.

You could have pulled a WWII and keep nuking the until they surrender (2 should do it). The the next generation of ultra-cons could justify it by explaining that it saved time and lives compared to a continued land invasion.

I like to imagine what the USA would have done if it had have won Vietnam:
"So...we beat the commies, eh?"
"Yep"
"No more domino effect? Does it work in reverse"
"Nope"
"You want some noodle soup?"
"Sure"

for the purpose of argument. America Didnt lose vietnam in the traditional sense. Hold on let me check my history book......okay, America got Hanoi to agree to a Cease fire, in 73' effectively ending the war. The war was over. We were gone, all we had left was the embacy. In 75 the NVA attacked again breaking the cease fire. This became known as the Fall of Saigon. Americans were so tired of War and death that We did not go back in. We evacuated our embassies and left. Politically we lost, but technically we won the war.
You won that war only as much as the French have ever won any war. It was a stalemate. geez, the french should just invade Monaco or something. Anything to lose a record like that. The couldn't possibly lose agains monaco...*imagines french tanks, jets, and troops fleeing monaco being chased by a mob o F1 drivers and bikini baes wieldin tyre levers*

You could have pulled a WWII and keep nuking the until they surrender (2 should do it). The the next generation of ultra-cons could justify it by explaining that it saved time and lives compared to a continued land invasion.

I like to imagine what the USA would have done if it had have won Vietnam:
"So...we beat the commies, eh?"
"Yep"
"No more domino effect? Does it work in reverse"
"Nope"
"You want some noodle soup?"
"Sure"

:confused:

You won that war only as much as the French have ever won any war. It was a stalemate. geez, the french should just invade Monaco or something. Anything to lose a record like that. The couldn't possibly lose agains monaco...*imagines french tanks, jets, and troops fleeing monaco being chased by a mob o F1 drivers and bikini baes wieldin tyre levers*

lulz u r so funy n orignal!!!!1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I)

lulz u r so funy n orignal!!!!1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I)
France invaded Monaco in WWI?! Wait...FRANCE LOST TO MONACO IN WWI?! Did they have F1 back then?

http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Here's a question for everyone though: Could it have been a good thing the Vietnam War turned out the way it did? Didn't the US learn a lot about what it means to be a superpower? Didn't it do a lot for the development of US society as a whole? Didn't it perhaps prevent other stupidities that could've led to the world being blown up?

No. It is the genesis for many of our problems today and millions have died as a result.



Ever heard of Cambodia's Killing Fields, or Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge?

Here, I will help you out a bit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/78988.stm

Pol Pot came into power in the vacuum left by our pull-out.

This was a pull-out that never needed to happen - at least not before we had won a victory.

The problem as almost always is the case, the "usefull idiots" here in the US helped the enemies gain a victory they NEVER could have obtained on their own.

The Tet offensive of 1968 must surely be regarded as one of history's chameleon campaigns. When the North Vietnamese and Vietcong troops assaulted targets throughout the Republic of Vietnam at the end of January 1968, they expected to trigger an uprising of the South Vietnamese people against their government. Despite some spectacular early successes, the attacks failed. The South Vietnamese did not embrace the cause; thousands of sappers, assault troops, and cadres met their deaths before overwhelming allied counterattacks; and the insurgent infrastructure was so decimated at the end of the fighting that no large enemy offensives could be mounted for four years.

Nonetheless, the Tet offensive was a turning point in the war, and the North Vietnamese were successful in altering the course of the war far beyond the accomplishments of their army. The American people were shocked that the Vietcong/ North Vietnamese Army (VC/NV A) possessed the strength to make the widespread strikes. In the public clamor that followed, President Lyndon Johnson announced a bombing halt and withdrew from the 1968 Presidential race. The policy of Vietnamization was launched, and many Americans concluded that the war was too costly to pursue.

It has always been clear that the press played a vital role in this dramatic shift of opinion. It has been evident that dissatisfaction with the war among media opinion-makers helped form an American public attitude of discouragement



http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1978/nov-dec/bishop.html


Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.


Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]


Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13121

If we had pressed our advantage right after this, we would have won and in short order. Instead the Press and the leftists cowed our political leaders and Well over 2 million people died as a result.

It also has been the source of inspiration for many of the Anti-American terrorists. They know they can count on the Press and the left to undermine their own country and help them achieve victory.

The US should never have been there in the first place. It was for moral reasons that people protested for an end to the war.

The war it's self killed over 5 million Viet Namese. Add to that the things I sited before (intentional famine, agent orange, agent white, all the My Lei's we never found out about, all the undocumented casualties of the massive bombing campagines, those murdered by the South Vietnamese government we were proping up) and the pro-war crowd has much more blood on their hands then the peace crowd.

And Frontpage is hardly a fair and objective source to quote, by the by.

If conservatives are ganna throw a fit when liberals try to use MoveOn.org or some liberal blog as a source, it's gatta work both ways.

(I'm not a liberal or a leftist, by the by, just to head off any "you crazy liberals...." attacks/dismisals.)

No, cuz the Viets were pretty crazy.

They know they can count on the Press and the left to undermine their own country and help them achieve victory.

By the by, I've always thought supporting what is right was vastly more important then supporting "your own country." It's a no contest, really.