NationStates Jolt Archive

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

We got our asses kicked. Is that enough?

Yeah, Really, Truly. Damn.

You may not have lost, but you were defeated, you failed and you did not pass go.

What, are you under the impression that we won the Vietnam War? The purpose of the war (or if your PC or a jackass, conflict if you prefer)was to cease the spread of communism, which happened, but due to the fact that communism is garbage, as opposed to any efforts on the United State's part. Yes thats right for all you communists out there, communism is garbage.

You may not have lost, but you were defeated, you failed and you did not pass go.Nobody had to go (http://blogs.ipswitch.com/archives/get%20out%20of%20jail%20free.jpg) to jail though...

We got our asses kicked. Is that enough?
Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

This has to be, hands-down, the singlemost stupid question I've heard in 2006.

Did we really lose Vietnam
Yep, you really lost.
or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
Fleeing the country was not part of a larger plan to defeat International Communism.
What really constitutes defeat?
Running for home with your collective tails between your legs constitutes defeat.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

That must make the realisation that the North Vietnamese won, all the harder to take.

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

We lost because the (#*@&#$ ((@*!@ )#$( politicians would not let those of us in the military do the job we were trained to do.

And before I become to (*^ )*%^$ pissed I'll get the hell out of here. Yes, you got my button. :mad:

Nobody had to go (http://blogs.ipswitch.com/archives/get%20out%20of%20jail%20free.jpg) to jail though...

Wrong!

We lost because the (#*@&#$ ((@*!@ )#$( politicians would not let those of us in the military do the job we were trained to do.

And before I become to (*^ )*%^$ pissed I'll get the hell out of here. Yes, you got my button. :mad:

thats true to. If we really just went all out, north vietnam would have been a smoking crater.

You were annihlated,well and truly.Seriously badly well and truly to teh max.

thats true to. If we really just went all out, north vietnam would have been a smoking crater.

Sez you.

We lost because the (#*@&#$ ((@*!@ )#$( politicians would not let those of us in the military do the job we were trained to do.

And before I become to (*^ )*%^$ pissed I'll get the hell out of here. Yes, you got my button. :mad:What was your plan then? Carpet bomb even more? Kill ALL the civvies and 'Cong in a big bang?

If only the politicians would let the military run amok once in a while...

I'm afraid you have lost your button.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

If the objective is not met, you have lost. The objective was to stop the Communist North from taking over the South. Clearly, we lost.

Sez you.

What, are the trees in vietnam someone capable of deterring the blast of nuclear weapons? Quick, get some of these trees and use them for body armor!

The goal was to prevent North Vietnam from taking over South Vietnam. North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. Ergo, the U.S. lost.

What, are the trees in vietnam someone capable of deterring the blast of nuclear weapons? Quick, get some of these trees and use them for body armor!

Ah yes, the "use teh n00k's" argument. Never ceases to amaze me.

Did you have brain fart and forget their neighbours may have had something to say about that?

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

Since the very beginning of warfare, when one understands the difference between "killing more people" and "winning the objective of the war".

Point of order-Killing more people does not win you a war. If the enemy is still willing to fight, and die, in massive numbers, you are not winning the war.

Vietnam can be summarized as: US takes a hill, leaves the hill. US retakes the hill, leaves the hill. US takes the hill again, leaves the hill. US takes the hill one more time, finally leaves it for good.

Wrong!I thought it was a Monopoly metaphor I was referring to. Unless I'm wrong, you are a great stinking turd. So there!

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

By that logic, the British didn't lose the Revolutionary War.

What, are the trees in vietnam someone capable of deterring the blast of nuclear weapons? Quick, get some of these trees and use them for body armor!
Oh yeah, thats makes sense.You save the people from communisim by killing them all. And I am sure that Russia wouldn't have waged in if nuclear fire-crackers were set off.;)

There is no question about it, and history is already quite clear on the subject - the US lost the Vietnam war. Anything else is denial due to hurt pride.

By that logic, the British didn't lose the Revolutionary War.

And the Confederates won the Civil War!

Let's all start singing "God Save the Queen" and "Dixie".

What, are the trees in vietnam someone capable of deterring the blast of nuclear weapons? Quick, get some of these trees and use them for body armor!

What, you mean to tell me the radioactive fallout won't respect international borders? Those south Vietnamese are just as dead as their countrymen in the north?

Good job supposedly protecting people there, MacArthur. You wanna break out the howitzers for when the blackflies start biting?

Sheesh.

Since the very beginning of warfare, when one understands the difference between "killing more people" and "winning the objective of the war".

Point of order-Killing more people does not win you a war. If the enemy is still willing to fight, and die, in massive numbers, you are not winning the war.

Vietnam can be summarized as: US takes a hill, leaves the hill. US retakes the hill, leaves the hill. US takes the hill again, leaves the hill. US takes the hill one more time, finally leaves it for good.

Very true ."It is not those who can inflict the most, but those who can suffer most who win". ~ Tomás Mac Curtain (and Ghandi later on)

By that logic, the British didn't lose the Revolutionary War.

Hitler might have one too, I can't be arsed checking numbers.

*sigh*

Yes you lost, your military is not invincible, just like every other military, get over it............................

And the Confederates won the Civil War!

Let's all start singing "God Save the Queen" and "Dixie".Shite! My band does them both as encore bits... not necessarily both at the same gig, but...

Am I a contrafactual historian...???

*does serious soul-searching*

We lost because the (#*@&#$ ((@*!@ )#$( politicians would not let those of us in the military do the job we were trained to do.

And before I become to (*^ )*%^$ pissed I'll get the hell out of here. Yes, you got my button. :mad:

There's only one way to end an insurgency in an occupied country. Only two groups have done it. The Romans and the Mongols. Are you honestly saying that you are willing to do what they did?

"We didnt lose! It was a tie, besides they're happy now. They have McDonalds." -Red Forman

There's only one way to end an insurgency in an occupied country. Only two groups have done it. The Romans and the Mongols. Are you honestly saying that you are willing to do what they did?

im wondering. how did the romans and mongals do it?

Hitler might have one too, I can't be arsed checking numbers.

Nah, he didn't manage the winning battle bit against Russia.

im wondering. how did the romans and mongals do it?

Kill everyone.

What was your plan then? Carpet bomb even more? Kill ALL the civvies and 'Cong in a big bang?

If only the politicians would let the military run amok once in a while...

I'm afraid you have lost your button.

Umm I think he's right. Dropping some canned sunshine on the north very well could have ended this "Hey it's our right to conquer the south" mentality so prevalent in the north.

You guys seem bitter.

Kill everyone.

i see.

The new US policy in Iraq?

You guys seem bitter.

To whom are you speaking? I feel great.

Umm I think he's right. Dropping some canned sunshine on the north very well could have ended this "Hey it's our right to conquer the south" mentality so prevalent in the north.

And resulted in total nuclear warfare. Meaning that everyone dies. You are included in everyone. Do you understand now, or do I have to explain the concept of death?

Umm I think he's right. Dropping some canned sunshine on the north very well could have ended this "Hey it's our right to conquer the south" mentality so prevalent in the north.

Another brain fart. This thread is beginning to smell.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

When you listen to hippies and withdraw?

That must make the realisation that the North Vietnamese won, all the harder to take.
Won by dying by the millions, then yes.

When you listen to hippies and withdraw?

The alternative was to kill every single person in North Vietnam. Which, in your opinion, is better? Killing millions of innocents, or ending the pointless bloodshed?

When you listen to hippies and withdraw?

It wasn't just hippies, the vast majority of the US wanted out. Which is only reasonable, considering that we were in 10 year long conflict, with pretty much no gain, and no one really knowing what the hell we were fighting about to begin with.

So really, it wasn't just the hippies, but most of America.

Won by dying by the millions, then yes.

So, Britain won the Revolutionary War then? And the Confederacy won the Civil War?

Won by dying by the millions, then yes.

Won by being willing to die by the millions.

Of course the US lost in Vietnam. It doesn't matter at all that the US won every major battle. They were fighting on the side of a lukewarm ally, South Vietnam was politically divided between those who were pro-US and pro-North Vietnam. The goals were somewhat ill-defined and the reason for the war (domino theory) was ludicrous. The goal of the US was to defeat Communism in Vietnam and they failed at that.

Ironically, the US would have been better off leaving them alone and letting communism defeat itself, they would have saved 60,000 dead, hundreds of thousands of physically or psychologically wounded and untold billions of dollars. If they would have allowed Vietnam to determine it's own path and become communist in the 50s when the French were defeated, they most likely would have tried it, not liked it and rejected in the 80s and 90s like most other Asian communists.

We would have won the war, had there not been so much political pressure back home. We withdrew even though we had a fighting chance, because some politician manipulated the situation into pillar to support their popularity amongst the people.

Its exactly whats going to happen in Iraq, unfortunately.
It's a shame too, seeing that Iraq isn't even half as bad, when you compare the losses. 60,000 soldiers to a little bit below 3,000 soldiers?

We would have won the war, had there not been so much political pressure back home. We withdrew even though we had a fighting chance, because some politician manipulated the situation into pillar to support their popularity amongst the people.

And how, pray tell, would manage that? We were fighting an insurgency. The only way insurgencies have ever been stopped is to kill everyone. Do you honestly think the military could have killed every single person in North Vietnam? Even excluding the fact that every single country in the world would have turned against us for such an attempt.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

There wasn't over one million. Only about 666,000 died. And we weren't the only ones in Vietnam.

Major battles:

Ap Bac - Viet Cong success, 18 killed, 39 wounded. SV: 80 and 3 American advisors dead, 100 and 8 American advisors (henceforth A.A.) wounded, 5 helicopters downed

Binh Gia - Viet Cong kicks SV ass, SV insists it won. SV losses: over 300 dead, with 5 A.A. dead

Dong Xoai - SK has a strong military base they think can withstand attack. WRONG. Viet Cong killed: over 350. SV: over 800 US: 7 killed, 15 wounded, 13 MIA

Battle of Ia Drang - draw, both claim victory. NV: 837 dead, 1,365 wounded (out of over 2,000). US: 234 dead, 242 wounded (out of 395). I have no idea why the dead and wounded add up to more than 395, unless some of the wounded died, or some of the bodies were counted twice.

Battle of Long Tan (lol, tan) - Australia and New Zealand win easily with some US reinforcements. AUS losses: 18 dead, 24 wounded (out of 108 w/o reinorcements). NV losses: 245 confirmed dead (US claims 800 dead)

Battle of Dak To - US and SV win. US losses: 289 KIA, 985 wounded. SV: 79 KIA. NV: 1,200 to 1,455.

Battle of Khe Sanh - American tactical victory. US and SV: 730 KIA, 2,642 wounded, 7 MIA. NV: Over 9,000.

1st Tet Offensive - US and SV tactical victory, equally decisive Communist strategic & psychological victory. US and SV losses: 4,324 KIA, 16,063 WIA, 598 MIA. NV: 25,000-45,000 KIA (estimate), unknown number of wounded

1st Battle of Saigon - Viet Cong loss, Adams photograph origin (Viet Cong captain being executed by revolver, he was accused of killing the families of police officers. There was no trial, just a rather brief questioning)

Battle of Hue - US and SV win. SV:452 KIA; 2,123 WIA. US:216 KIA; 1,584 WIA. NV: 1,500 according to America, 3,000 according to SV.

Tet 1969 - refers to the attacks mounted by principally North Vietnamese forces in February 1969 in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Most attacks centered around military targets near Saigon and Da Nang and were quickly beaten off, although the U.S. suffered heavy casualties. Some speculate that the attacks were mounted to test the will of the new American President Richard Nixon who retaliated by secretly bombing Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia the following month. Numerous US bases were breeched, ranging in size from the huge Long Binh Army Depot near Bien Hoa to Oasis LZ. These attacks were all beaten back but did inflict casualties and reinforced the fact that Communist forces were able to mount attacks at will. (from Wikipedia)

Battle of Hamburger Hill (lol) - US wins. US losses: 70+ killed, 372 wounded. NV losses: 630+ dead.

Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord - last major encounter between US withdrawls, NV wins. Losses: NV (nine battalions strong): 2400+ KIA. US (one battalion strong): 250 KIA, 1,000+ WIA

I'd list more of the major battles, but this is starting to take a long while.

We would have won the war, had there not been so much political pressure back home. We withdrew even though we had a fighting chance, because some politician manipulated the situation into pillar to support their popularity amongst the people.


Yeah, those noted peaceniks RICHARD NIXON and HENRY KISSINGER.

Did you guys know that the US was not the only nation with troops in Vietnam fighting the communists?

South Korea, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, and New Zealand all had troops in Vietnam fighting against the Vietcong. But the US had more forces than they did.
If it is true that the US lost Vietnam then it must be true that these other nations lost Vietnam too since they also withdrew their forces.

In fact, South Korea sent 300,000 troops to help defend South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression.

Australia had sent 200,000 troops to fight the communists in Vietnam and prevent the north from taking over South Vietnam.
But Australia pulled its forces out before the US did and at a faster pace.

New Zealand sent 3500 troops to fight the Viet Cong.

Even Canada, France, Spain, Tunisia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, were involved in trying to prevent the North from taking over the South.

Therefore, I think that as they had common goal of the US to stop the North from taking over South Vietnam, if there was defeat in Vietnam, it was not just America's defeat but all of these other countries got their asses kicked in Vietnam too.

My browser won't let me copy past the link to the timeline. I'll be back, I'm going to try restarting the browser.

Did you guys know that the US was not the only nation with troops in Vietnam fighting the communists?

South Korea, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, and New Zealand all had troops in Vietnam fighting against the Vietcong. But the US had more forces than they did.
If it is true that the US lost Vietnam then it must be true that these other nations lost Vietnam too since they also withdrew their forces.

In fact, South Korea sent 300,000 troops to help defend South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression.

Australia had sent 200,000 troops to fight the communists in Vietnam and prevent the north from taking over South Vietnam.
But Australia pulled its forces out before the US did and at a faster pace.

New Zealand sent 3500 troops to fight the Viet Cong.

Even Canada, France, Spain, Tunisia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, were involved in trying to prevent the North from taking over the South.

Therefore, I think that as they had common goal of the US to stop the North from taking over South Vietnam, if there was defeat in Vietnam, it was not just America's defeat but all of these other countries got their asses kicked in Vietnam too.

My browser won't let me copy past the link to the timeline. I'll be back, I'm going to try restarting the browser.


I'm Canadian. We weren't involved in your humiliation.

Did you guys know that the US was not the only nation with troops in Vietnam fighting the communists?

South Korea, Australia, Thailand, the Philippines, and New Zealand all had troops in Vietnam fighting against the Vietcong. But the US had more forces than they did.
If it is true that the US lost Vietnam then it must be true that these other nations lost Vietnam too since they also withdrew their forces.

In fact, South Korea sent 300,000 troops to help defend South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression.

Australia had sent 200,000 troops to fight the communists in Vietnam and prevent the north from taking over South Vietnam.
But Australia pulled its forces out before the US did and at a faster pace.

New Zealand sent 3500 troops to fight the Viet Cong.

Even Canada, France, Spain, Tunisia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, were involved in trying to prevent the North from taking over the South.

Therefore, I think that as they had common goal of the US to stop the North from taking over South Vietnam, if there was defeat in Vietnam, it was not just America's defeat but all of these other countries got their asses kicked in Vietnam too.

My browser won't let me copy past the link to the timeline. I'll be back, I'm going to try restarting the browser.

I want a link - now.

Edit: I know it's bullshit, because there was no involvement from Ireland in the Vietnam War, but for kicks, I'd love to hear your source on that fantastical claim.

Yes, even I will admit that we lost but if we would have been willing we could have won the war very quickly at very low cost of American life and money. Though our political leadership was unwilling.

Yes, even I will admit that we lost but if we would have been willing we could have won the war very quickly at very low cost of American life and money. Though our political leadership was unwilling.

How?

Yes, even I will admit that we lost but if we would have been willing we could have won the war very quickly at very low cost of American life and money. Though our political leadership was unwilling.

No, you're completely wrong. Your leadership was more-than-willing - 'twas your people who weren't.

The alternative was to kill every single person in North Vietnam. Which, in your opinion, is better? Killing millions of innocents, or ending the pointless bloodshed?

Well, it depends on if the innocent humans are enemy or friendly. If so, then by all means the first is by far the best solution. Though, if they are friendly then well there would have been no war.

Canada did not participate in the Vietnam War. Individual Canadians enlisted in the US Army, but the Canadian government had nothing to do with the war.

Well, it depends on if the innocent humans are enemy or friendly. If so, then by all means the first is by far the best solution. Though, if they are friendly then well there would have been no war.

Because it's their fault for being born in North Vietnam, right?

No, you're completely wrong. Your leadership was more-than-willing - 'twas your people who weren't.

It could have been won before it became to unpopular with the people. Also, the politicians could have made the war more appealing to the public.

Because it's their fault for being born in North Vietnam, right?

No, the fault was letting a government defy the power of the United States of America. After a people are slain the next country will be far less willing to fight against America.

No, the fault was letting a government defy the power of the United States of America. After a people are slain the next country will be far less willing to fight against America.

Wow, I bet you said that with a straight face too... :eek:

It could have been won before it became to unpopular with the people.

Well, the Soviets could've won the Cold War before empty shop shelves became unpopular with Muscovites, too. Didn't happen, though. So what's your point?

Also, the politicians could have made the war more appealing to the public.

How, d'you reckon? By ending the Draft? Handing out door-prizes?

Well, the Soviets could've won the Cold War before empty shop shelves became unpopular with Muscovites, too. Didn't happen, though. So what's your point?



How, d'you reckon? By ending the Draft? Handing out door-prizes?

Ending the draft would have been a good measure. I am fully against the draft, save for times of extreme danger to the safety of the Union.

Wow, I bet you said that with a straight face too... :eek:

Do you disagree that a nation would be less inclined to go to war with another who had just butchered an entire enemy population?

You may not have lost, but you were defeated, you failed and you did not pass go.

But we still got our $200!

No, the fault was letting a government defy the power of the United States of America. After a people are slain the next country will be far less willing to fight against America.

Yeah, people in a dictatorship have so much influence on their government.

Well, it depends on if the innocent humans are enemy or friendly. If so, then by all means the first is by far the best solution. Though, if they are friendly then well there would have been no war.

Biggest problem: When dealing with insurgencies, you are basic dealing with Citizen soldiers. Not to mention that many actually innocent people were killed, which in turn only fueled the NV, and pissed a great many off. The problem with insurgency is that since it is difficult to tell citizen from soldier, you face the problem of massive citizen casualties. Due to this, you run into the problem of pissing people off. Which in turn leads to one of two possible ways to quell an insurgency:

1. Leave.
2. Kill everyone, innocent and guilty alike.

There are huge problems with both.

Do you disagree that a nation would be less inclined to go to war with another who had just butchered an entire enemy population?

Well, people seemed to be pretty happy to do so in WWII.

Do you disagree that a nation would be less inclined to go to war with another who had just butchered an entire enemy population?

In this day and age, other nations would only be rallied against us. They don't need to go to war with us to effectively neuter us. Embargoes, for instance, would destroy our economy.

Do you disagree that a nation would be less inclined to go to war with another who had just butchered an entire enemy population?

You do of course realize that had America pursued this course of action, it would be a pariah nation to this day - right? This has not escaped you?

The US butchering an entire population would have handed the USSR the world.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

As Celtlund and Seangoli have already pointed out, winning the battles does not constitute winning the war.

Well, people seemed to be pretty happy to do so in WWII.

My history may possibly wrong but I seem to remember the Axis powers starting the war? Unless of course you mean that Poland was murdering its enemies, and if so I don't think it was the reason Germany attacked.

The reason the world attacked the Axis was because they were set on domination of the entire world. Plus the Axis started the war. The allied powers were left with little choice be killed or fight.

Do you disagree that a nation would be less inclined to go to war with another who had just butchered an entire enemy population?

Well, I find it likely that China and other nations would have provided active military support to prevent the United States from committing genocide in Vietnam.

More importantly, if you are willing to commit acts of genocide to "win" a conflict, you don't deserve to call yourself an American, at least as I understand the intent of the Founding Fathers and other great Americans who have followed. I find the fact that you would even consider genocide a viable strategy to be horrifying.

It could have been won before it became to unpopular with the people. Also, the politicians could have made the war more appealing to the public.

Come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send your sons off before it's too late.
You can be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

- Joe McDonald

You do of course realize that had America pursued this course of action, it would be a pariah nation to this day - right? This has not escaped you?

The US butchering an entire population would have handed the USSR the world.

Well, the entire population would not need be slain. Destruction of anything to be used in the North through carpet bombing would have won the war and not have involved a genocide.

My arguments about killing a population were brought on by people saying it was the only way we could have won. In a normal situation I would not support this but inorder to save Americans I would support it entirely.

My history may possibly wrong but I seem to remember the Axis powers starting the war? Unless of course you mean that Poland was murdering its enemies, and if so I don't think it was the reason Germany attacked.

The reason the world attacked the Axis was because they were set on domination of the entire world. Plus the Axis started the war. The allied powers were left with little choice be killed or fight.

I'm referring to the Holocaust. Germany labelled innocents as enemies.

The American politicians lost sight of the objective in Vietnam, given that, there was no way we could win.

I'm referring to the Holocaust. Germany labelled innocents as enemies.

The Holocaust was not a war, it was a slaughter of a nations own citizens based on race(and other factors). Those people were truely innocent, they had in no way contributed to harm to Germany. Meaning that they were innocent.

Well, the entire population would not need be slain. Destruction of anything to be used in the North through carpet bombing would have won the war and not have involved a genocide.

My arguments about killing a population were brought on by people saying it was the only way we could have won. In a normal situation I would not support this but inorder to save Americans I would support it entirely.

Killing the northern half of Vietnam helps save Americans how?

Well, the entire population would not need be slain. Destruction of anything to be used in the North through carpet bombing would have won the war and not have involved a genocide.

My arguments about killing a population were brought on by people saying it was the only way we could have won. In a normal situation I would not support this but inorder to save Americans I would support it entirely.

Which in turn would have led to massive civilian deaths, which would have still made the US look quite a bit worse by the rest of the world, and likely turning it into a pariah of sorts.

The Holocaust was not a war, it was a slaughter of a nations own citizens based on race(and other factors). Those people were truely innocent, they had in no way contributed to harm to Germany. Meaning that they were innocent.

And the majority of the North Vietnamese had in no way contributed to harm to the United States.

And you seem to have forgotten that Germany sent people from other countries into the death camps as well.

The Holocaust was not a war, it was a slaughter of a nations own citizens based on race(and other factors). Those people were truely innocent, they had in no way contributed to harm to Germany. Meaning that they were innocent.

And wide-scale destruction of NVA would have killed many non-combatant and non-militant civilians. And the point was this:

You said nations would be less likely to go to war that committed genocide. He pointed out that it doesn't, and in most cases nations in this day and age would be more inclined.

I want a link - now.

Edit: I know it's bullshit, because there was no involvement from Ireland in the Vietnam War, but for kicks, I'd love to hear your source on that fantastical claim.

I had to restart my browser:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:gz-bT83XohgJ:ieas.berkeley.edu/cks/k12/ROKTimeline.doc+philippine+involvement+in+Vietnam&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Since you inquired regarding Ireland, Irish involvement was nonmilitary.
I did a google search on Irish involvement in Vietnam and it turns that some Irish troops did die in Vietnam, though the other link says Ireland's involvement was supposed to be non military.

http://www.irishveteransresearch.com/

It seems to be an area that has not been greatly researched but it seems that Ireland sent mostly Red Cross workers and money to South Vietnam.

Well, I find it likely that China and other nations would have provided active military support to prevent the United States from committing genocide in Vietnam.

More importantly, if you are willing to commit acts of genocide to "win" a conflict, you don't deserve to call yourself an American, at least as I understand the intent of the Founding Fathers and other great Americans who have followed. I find the fact that you would even consider genocide a viable strategy to be horrifying.

Are you saying that you would not consider a genocide against an enemy even if American lives would be saved by its action? I am not advocating random genocide, I am not advocating genocide against an opponent who would abide by the geneva convention, and I am not advocating genocide against a people who have not taken an active combatant role against America.

When an enemy tortures your POWs, hides those who participate in guerilla warfare, or activly seeks to kill Americans then I see murder of that nations people as a perfectly acceptable way of revenge in those cases.

Canada did not participate in the Vietnam War. Individual Canadians enlisted in the US Army, but the Canadian government had nothing to do with the war.

http://dede.essortment.com/canadasvietnam_rgwv.htm

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/asithappens/vietnam/

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/9680/involved.html

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-1413/conflict_war/vietnam/

Are you saying that you would not consider a genocide against an enemy even if American lives would be saved by its action?

No. Genocide is never acceptable. It is the most monstrous act that can ever be perpetrated.

Are you saying that you would not consider a genocide against an enemy even if American lives would be saved by its action? I am not advocating random genocide, I am not advocating genocide against an opponent who would abide by the geneva convention, and I am not advocating genocide against a people who have not taken an active combatant role against America.

When an enemy tortures your POWs, hides those who participate in guerilla warfare, or activly seeks to kill Americans then I see murder of that nations people as a perfectly acceptable way of revenge in those cases.

Then you are a sociopath.

Incidentally, if a foreign country invaded the United States, would you advocate participating in guerilla warfare against the occupier? Would you assist a resistance force?

The fact that all of Vietnam became communist clearly demonstrates that America lost.

thats true to. If we really just went all out, north vietnam would have been a smoking crater.
When you're trying to advance capitalism, what's the point in making the opposing country a smoking crater?

Anyone thinking that any country willfully perpetrating an act of genocide - for whatever reason - would somehow not lead to being made a decided international pariah needs to make their thinking substantially less wish-based in nature.

And yeah, I'm looking at you, Seangoli.

http://dede.essortment.com/canadasvietnam_rgwv.htm

http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/asithappens/vietnam/

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/9680/involved.html

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-1413/conflict_war/vietnam/

Those are the worst links I have ever seen. You first link says exactly what I said, that individual Canadians enlisted in the US Army. The other links imply that Canada sold war materials to the US. Big deal, there are billions of dollars in trade between the US and Canada every day. Canada was hardly going to mount a trade embargo against the US, they were still allies in most other respects.

The official Canadian government position was that were against the war in Vietnam and the Canadian government did not contribute a military force. Your crappy links have done nothing to show that wasn't the case.

Supposing the US did do genocide in Vietnam, which against American nature, the world would not have embargoed the US, except for the communist nations that we already weren't trading with. Europe was, at the time, heavily dependent on trade with the US as were our allies in asia. An embargoe against America would have been a disaster for Europe and others.

Anyone thinking that any country willfully perpetrating an act of genocide - for whatever reason - would somehow not lead to being made a decided international pariah needs to make their thinking substantially less wish-based in nature.

And yeah, I'm looking at you, Seangoli.

Huh? I was saying the same thign you were... or at least trying to.

Those are the worst links I have ever seen. You first link says exactly what I said, that individual Canadians enlisted in the US Army. The other links imply that Canada sold war materials to the US. Big deal, there are billions of dollars in trade between the US and Canada every day. Canada was hardly going to mount a trade embargo against the US, they were still allies in most other respects.

The official Canadian government position was that were against the war in Vietnam and the Canadian government did not contribute a military force. Your crappy links have done nothing to show that wasn't the case.

Eh. If you read the very first link I posted in this thread you would have found that Canada's support for South Vietnam was nonmilitary.

I had to restart my browser:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:gz-bT83XohgJ:ieas.berkeley.edu/cks/k12/ROKTimeline.doc+philippine+involvement+in+Vietnam&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Since you inquired regarding Ireland, Irish involvement was nonmilitary.
I did a google search on Irish involvement in Vietnam and it turns that some Irish troops did die in Vietnam, though the other link says Ireland's involvement was supposed to be non military.

http://www.irishveteransresearch.com/

It seems to be an area that has not been greatly researched but it seems that Ireland sent mostly Red Cross workers and money to South Vietnam.

Yeah, non military aid. Humanitarian aid/Red Cross workers =/= 'being involved in the Vietnam War'. Completely different issue as you are not talking about a government or state sponsored activity, but merely individuals.

Irish people died fighting in other armies, British or US - not Irish Army. Completely different issue.

Another link that is related to the topic:

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

Huh? I was saying the same thign you were... or at least trying to.

Oh, alright then - you just sounded a lil' on the tentative side, which I evidently misinterpreted. My bad.

Are you saying that you would not consider a genocide against an enemy even if American lives would be saved by its action?
No, absolutely not. No human's life is worth more than any others.

Oh, alright then - you just sounded a lil' on the tentative side, which I evidently misinterpreted. My bad.

I think I see where the misinerpretation came in, and that was due to REALLY bad wording on my part.

What I had meant is that today, most nations would more inclined to take actions against nations which committed genocide. However, asI had originally stated, it made it sound as though I were saying that nations are more inclined today to commit genocide.

Another link that is related to the topic:

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

Canada

Most Canadians who served in the Vietnam War were members of the United States military with estimated numbers ranging from 2,500 to 3,000. Most became U.S/ citizens upon returning from Vietnam or were dual citizens prior to joining the military.

See? Canada wasn't involved. Sure there were Canadians who fought, but they did not respresent us in any way, shape or form. It's your lost war, mate; don't come knocking on our door looking to share blame for your nation's shame.

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/16/canadainvietnamwar.shtml

Since you inquired regarding Ireland, Irish involvement was nonmilitary.
Of course not. Ireland would never participate in such a war.

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/16/canadainvietnamwar.shtml

Well that was a fruitless read. Got anything that doesn't refer pretty much exclusively to the works of other people, while failing to provide links of any sort to those works? Or are you just going all Google-happy, hoping that something, somewhere will back up your argument?

'Cause damned if I'll sift through that much crap in aid of further satisfying your tendency toward wishful thinking, again.

Yes.

Are you saying that you would not consider a genocide against an enemy even if American lives would be saved by its action? I am not advocating random genocide, I am not advocating genocide against an opponent who would abide by the geneva convention, and I am not advocating genocide against a people who have not taken an active combatant role against America.

Er... just no.

That's simply so wrong that I'm not even entirely certain where to begin.


When an enemy tortures your POWs, hides those who participate in guerilla warfare, or activly seeks to kill Americans then I see murder of that nations people as a perfectly acceptable way of revenge in those cases.
... and when they are doing this because your troops are involved in an illegal war where they do not belong, this justifies murdering innocent civilians HOW?

Seek help.

Seek lots of it.

Really, please. Before you hurt yourself and others.

See? Canada wasn't involved. Sure there were Canadians who fought, but they did not respresent us in any way, shape or form. It's your lost war, mate; don't come knocking on our door looking to share blame for your nation's shame.

Yes it is true that Canada did not send its army to defend South Vietnam but it is also true that the Canadian government encouraged its people to join the US military and to sell weapons to the US for use in Vietnam.

12 billion dollars worth in fact.

Remember Agent Orange, the worst weapon ever used in Vietnam? It was invented by Canada and given to the US to use in Vietnam.

http://bluemapleleaf.blogspot.com/2005/02/cbc-rewrites-history-denies-canadian_05.html

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/part2.html

The Canadian government was not pleased that the memo was made public. It indicated that at a crucial time in the Vietnam War, Canada's prime minister - the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize - not only knew about the US bombing of North Vietnam six months before it happened, but actually gave it a thumbs-up

Heck, the leaders of the US and Canada has a secret meeting and talked about nuking North Vietnam.

Er... just no.

That's simply so wrong that I'm not even entirely certain where to begin.


... and when they are doing this because your troops are involved in an illegal war where they do not belong, this justifies murdering innocent civilians HOW?

Seek help.

Seek lots of it.

Really, please. Before you hurt yourself and others.

How is a war illegal if you are defending a soverign nation from a hostile invasion?

What was your plan then? Carpet bomb even more? Kill ALL the civvies and 'Cong in a big bang?

If only the politicians would let the military run amok once in a while...

I'm afraid you have lost your button.
I bow to your superior grasp of war...really amazing since you got your infromation from either a full blown Communist or an American College professor [not much difference]:upyours:

How is a war illegal if you are defending a soverign nation from a hostile invasion?
It was none of our business.

It's not the job of the United States of America to get involved in foreign entanglements, and I believe that a very wise president responsible for founding this nation firmly recommended that we maintain a course of non-intervention.

Non-intervention doesn't mean isolationism. But it also doesn't mean we have much business propping up a government set up by the French that is on the losing end of a civil war. Nor, to reiterate my original point, does it mean we have a right to commit genocide against an entire population (as the poster I responded to suggested we should have done) simply because they are killing our troops.

It was none of our business.

It's not the job of the United States of America to get involved in foreign entanglements, and I believe that a very wise president responsible for founding this nation firmly recommended that we maintain a course of non-intervention.

Non-intervention doesn't mean isolationism. But it also doesn't mean we have much business propping up a government set up by the French that is on the losing end of a civil war. Nor, to reiterate my original point, does it mean we have a right to commit genocide against an entire population (as the poster I responded to suggested we should have done) simply because they are killing our troops.

Indeed. George Washington is turning over in his grave right now.

I bow to your superior grasp of war...really amazing since you got your infromation from either a full blown Communist or an American College professor [not much difference]:upyours:
what do you have against American college professors? Not all of them are liberals.

I bow to your superior grasp of war...really amazing since you got your infromation from either a full blown Communist or an American College professor [not much difference]:upyours:

Yeah, it's not like the only way an insurgency has ever been defeated is through a complete massacre of all of the people in the region. Oh, it is?

You know nothing of war.

It was none of our business.

It's not the job of the United States of America to get involved in foreign entanglements, and I believe that a very wise president responsible for founding this nation firmly recommended that we maintain a course of non-intervention.

Non-intervention doesn't mean isolationism. But it also doesn't mean we have much business propping up a government set up by the French that is on the losing end of a civil war. Nor, to reiterate my original point, does it mean we have a right to commit genocide against an entire population (as the poster I responded to suggested we should have done) simply because they are killing our troops.
So you think that America should not be defending other countries from being invaded. By that logic we did not belong in Kuwait or Saudi in 1991, we did not belong in Korea in the 60's and we did not belong in Europe in World War II as Germany had not attacked us.

I bow to your superior grasp of war...really amazing since you got your infromation from either a full blown Communist or an American College professor [not much difference]:upyours:

I've known some great American College professors that were neither Communists nor Liberals.

How is a war illegal if you are defending a soverign nation from a hostile invasion?

By the very fact that Ho Chi Minh was democratically elected, which pissed off the south.

But hey, let's not get into specifics, here. That ruins your case.

So you think that America should not be defending other countries from being invaded. By that logic we did not belong in Kuwait or Saudi in 1991, we did not belong in Korea in the 60's and we did not belong in Europe in World War II as Germany had not attacked us.

You do know that Bush Sr. gave the go ahead to Sadaam to invade Kuwait, but after he invaded, he decided to go back on what he said.

I bow to your superior grasp of war...really amazing since you got your infromation from either a full blown Communist or an American College professor [not much difference]:upyours:

...

Fuck you. Just fuck you. I've decided there's no point arguing with people like you, so I've decided to hit your level.

Yes it is true that Canada did not send its army to defend South Vietnam but it is also true that the Canadian government encouraged its people to join the US military and to sell weapons to the US for use in Vietnam.

12 billion dollars worth in fact.

Remember Agent Orange, the worst weapon ever used in Vietnam? It was invented by Canada and given to the US to use in Vietnam.

http://bluemapleleaf.blogspot.com/2005/02/cbc-rewrites-history-denies-canadian_05.html

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/part2.html

The Canadian government was not pleased that the memo was made public. It indicated that at a crucial time in the Vietnam War, Canada's prime minister - the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize - not only knew about the US bombing of North Vietnam six months before it happened, but actually gave it a thumbs-up

Heck, the leaders of the US and Canada has a secret meeting and talked about nuking North Vietnam.



now explain what Ireland did to help fight this war?

So you think that America should not be defending other countries from being invaded. By that logic we did not belong in Kuwait or Saudi in 1991, we did not belong in Korea in the 60's and we did not belong in Europe in World War II as Germany had not attacked us.

We didn't belong in the first two. As for the second, we didn't move against Germany until they declared war on us.

By the very fact that Ho Chi Minh was democratically elected, which pissed off the south.

But hey, let's not get into specifics, here. That ruins your case.

Ho Chi Minh was elected to be leader of the north, not the leader of the south.

The south was a seperate country with its own government. Ho Chi Minh was on a powerkick which caused him to illegally invade the soverign nation of South Vietnam.

How is a war illegal if you are defending a soverign nation from a hostile invasion?

The fact that the free and democratic elections due to be held were ignored by the puppet in the South (and by the United States) when it was realised Minh would have won a large portion of the vote across the country?

We didn't belong in the first two. As for the second, we didn't move against Germany until they declared war on us.

So we should have let Saddam Hussein take over Kuwait and let North Korea annex South Korea against the wishes of the South Koreans?

The fact that the free and democratic elections due to be held were ignored by the puppet in the South (and by the United States) when it was realised Minh would have won a large portion of the vote across the country?

You have to remember that Vietnam was two countries, not one.

You have to remember that Vietnam was two countries, not one.

Temporarily divided at the 17th par. after defeating the French, according to the Geneva Accords of 1954 the division was temporary pending free and fair elections for a national leadership.

1956, Diem refused to enter into negotiations to hold the elections and was encouraged by U.S. not to.

Read up a bit.

So we should have let Saddam Hussein take over Kuwait and let North Korea annex South Korea against the wishes of the South Koreans?

Well, I'm going to go with what Seangoli said. Bush, Sr. gave the go-ahead for Kuwait at first, then went back on his word.

Read up a bit.You're an optimistic sort. ;)

now explain what Ireland did to help fight this war?

Moral Support.

So you think that America should not be defending other countries from being invaded. By that logic we did not belong in Kuwait or Saudi in 1991, we did not belong in Korea in the 60's and we did not belong in Europe in World War II as Germany had not attacked us.
Germany was military allies with Japan, whom did attack us. If I am not mistaken, that was more or less the only reason we went to war with Nazi Germany... and it is valid to go to war with the allies of one's military enemies.

I admittedly overstated my case regarding Vietnam - "illegal" was perhaps a harsh term. The Cold War was a time when events occuring throughout the world had a potential impact upon the national interests of the US, and the presence of advisors was perhaps not entirely unacceptable. The rationale for expanding the conflict into an all-out war, however, was questionable at best.

Vietnam and Korea were not perfect parallels. The conflict in Vietnam was the result of an indigenous civil war. The conflict mainly brewed as a result of the French withdrawal from French Indochina. The US had no natural role to play there. Korea was a bit different - the country was split between American and Soviet administrative blocs much like Germany at the end of World War II. The attack from the North could be perceived as an active breach of the agreement that set up that arrangement and thus the United States could be conceived to be a party to the conflict.

As for Kuwait, I'm personally not certain we should have been involved in the conflict, nor am I certain we ought to have played a role in bailing out the Saudis. In the latter instance, once could make the argument that ensuring the flow of oil without it falling into the hands of Hussein was ultimately in the national interest.

My original point was not to make a political statement about Vietnam or American international policy, but rather to point out that the US had no grounds to commit genocide against the North Vietnamese as the poster to whom I was responding suggested.

So uhm, my tour of the United States, the Fountain at the Centre Of The World tour, has uhm, involved a lot of listening to late-night radio phone-in shows in the Mid West. And there, my friends, is an education.

*laughter*

Listening one night, woman called up, said "I got all these Vietnamese moving in on my neighbourhood. I don't like it, too many of 'em! Got a Vietnamese family living right next door to me! All these Vietnamese coming over here all the time, how would they feel if a whole bunch of Americans just decided to move into Vietnam?"

*loud laughter*

WHERE do you begin? How would they feel? How would they feel? Well, I imagine they'd probably just spend the next ten years fighting a bitter defensive war, many of them living underground in a series of interconnected tunnels until through a mixture of military genius and ideological conviction they achieve a spectacular victory over the greatest military superpower the world has ever known. BUT THEN, the United States realises that territory it's lost militarily it can still conquer economically and so, using the IMF Structural Adjustment Program they prise open the Vietnamese economy to transnational banks and corporations, thus triggering the financial crisis which leads to the collapse of social welfare provisions, thereby causing doctors, nurses and teachers to migrate to the United States and look for work in branches of Dunkin' Donuts where they are paid wages so low, they are forced to move in next door to ignorant white trash.

*laughter, applause*


Satirists. The most dangerous form of politician. ;)

So you think that America should not be defending other countries from being invaded. By that logic we did not belong in Kuwait or Saudi in 1991, we did not belong in Korea in the 60's and we did not belong in Europe in World War II as Germany had not attacked us.
Yes, except for the last example. German ally Japan attacked America, and then Germany declared war on America.

Satirists. The most dangerous form of politician. ;)

but it is true that though we lost militarily we did win economically. Vietnam is heavily dependent on the US economically.

You're an optimistic sort. ;)

*sigh*

I don't know why I try anymore. I feel like Canute.

*sigh*

I don't know why I try anymore. I feel like Canute.
I feel more like Cassandra some days.

I feel more like Cassandra some days.

That is the most apt description of you I've ever heard. ;)

That is the most apt description of you I've ever heard. ;)
Except that I have a penis. ;)

Except that I have a penis. ;)

I do not believe that you do. ;)

I do not believe that you do. ;)
I know for a fact that "he" doesn't.

Except that I have a penis. ;)

How do you know that Cassandra didn't have one?

How do you know that Cassandra didn't have one?

Them Greeks, eh?

*tsk tsk*

First off we should have never been there doing things half ass.
Second we won the military battles and did keep the South from falling while we were there. However we lost the political war at home and then in Vietnam. So to me we didnt lose on the battlefield but were defeated by the anti-war crowd, not the NVA. We didnt get our asses handed to us like some of the posters on here suggest. If they think that they are ignorant. As far as communism and capitalism war in Vietnam goes. Capitalism is winning at the moment and looks like a sure defeat for communism.

I know for a fact that "he" doesn't.

There is video proof that I do--somewhere. ;)

Sticks and stones culture kicked the ass of

Moonlandig culture

Let's face it. It did.

Let us learn. But NO!

So to me we didnt lose on the battlefield but were defeated by the anti-war crowd, not the NVA.

So, the US military got its collective ass handed to it on a plate by a bunch of long haired faggoty peaceniks carrying flowers and wearing kaftans?

So, the US military got its collective ass handed to it on a plate by a bunch of long haired faggoty peaceniks carrying flowers and wearing kaftans?

Yes.

So, the US military got its collective ass handed to it on a plate by a bunch of long haired faggoty peaceniks carrying flowers and wearing kaftans?

And yet, somehow that's more honourable than losing to the NVA.

Huh. Whodathunkit?

So, the US military got its collective ass handed to it on a plate by a bunch of long haired faggoty peaceniks carrying flowers and wearing kaftans?When you put it that way, I think it's easier to accept getting beaten by the Vietnamese. ;)

First off we should have never been there doing things half ass.
Second we won the military battles and did keep the South from falling while we were there. However we lost the political war at home and then in Vietnam. So to me we didnt lose on the battlefield but were defeated by the anti-war crowd, not the NVA. We didnt get our asses handed to us like some of the posters on here suggest. If they think that they are ignorant. As far as communism and capitalism war in Vietnam goes. Capitalism is winning at the moment and looks like a sure defeat for communism.
You, Marrakech II, Having been down there in Vietnam, says; "I would have gone further, if only the populace back home didn't betray me!". Is that so?

So, the US military got its collective ass handed to it on a plate by a bunch of long haired faggoty peaceniks carrying flowers and wearing kaftans?

Like I said the military didn't get it ass handed to it. The political system of the time did. Yes the political system got its collective ass handed to it by the peace movement.

"Did America really lose Vietnam?"

The military never lost a single battle in Vietnam, the failure was entirely political.

~Satanic Reverend Medved~

You, Marrakech II, Having been down there in Vietnam, says; "I would have gone further, if only the populace back home didn't betray me!". Is that so?

Didn't say they betrayed anyone. America is a Democracy. If the populace wants the government to pull out then that is the right of the populace. However the decision to put restraints on the military and then pull out was not conducive to a military victory.

Like I said the military didn't get it ass handed to it.

Either way, it lost.

The political system of the time did. Yes the political system got its collective ass handed to it by the peace movement.

So is the real question then 'how do you fight the peace movement'? Is the answer teargas, rubber bullets or thermobaric devices?

Either way, it lost.

The political system of the time did. Yes the political system got its collective ass handed to it by the peace movement.

So is the real question then 'how do you fight the peace movement'? Is the answer teargas, rubber bullets or thermobaric devices?

They should not have fought the peace movement I believe. Ultimately they stopped resisting it. They were involved in freedom of association and speech. Which is every Americans right. Some may not like it but thats the way it is.

Yes we did lose the political aspect but I just want to point out how we did. Apparently some don't realize. Was alive in during the Vietnam war and remembered well the fall of Saigon.

When you put it that way, I think it's easier to accept getting beaten by the Vietnamese. ;)

Would rather admit defeat to a bunch of hippies then an enemy that we thoroughly wiped out on the battlefield. That's what happened in alot of respects.

Didn't say they betrayed anyone. America is a Democracy. If the populace wants the government to pull out then that is the right of the populace. However the decision to put restraints on the military and then pull out was not conducive to a military victory.
Oh. ok. I just thought i'd say "betrayed" to soften the fact you lost. It must be somebody's fault, right?!

Oh. ok. I just thought i'd say "betrayed" to soften the fact you lost. It must be somebody's fault!

Whenever a nation loses a "war" there is a place of blame. The two places to blame are the Kennedy-Johnson administrations and the peace movement. Which was a response to Kennedy-Johnsons administration.

Would rather admit defeat to a bunch of hippies then an enemy that we thoroughly wiped out on the battlefield. That's what happened in alot of respects.

All apparent partisanship aside, winning battles is not in itself the key to winning wars. The choice of which battles to fight, and which to avoid is probably much more important. It doubtless reflects well on the fighting prowess of the individuals of the American military who fought the battles on the ground, but if such engagements were ill-conceived, pointless or quixotic then questions should be asked of those in command who determined where and how the enemy should be engaged in order to defeat it by military means.

Whenever a nation loses a "war" there is a place of blame. The two places to blame are the Kennedy-Johnson administrations and the peace movement. Which was a response to Kennedy-Johnsons administration.Right. So the Peace movement lost the war..?

Whenever a nation loses a "war" there is a place of blame. The two places to blame are the Kennedy-Johnson administrations and the peace movement. Which was a response to Kennedy-Johnsons administration.

Is it fair to apportion blame without asking first if the 'war' should have been entered in the first place? Substitute the word 'responsible*for the word 'blame' in the post above, and I would have no quibble.


* or the word 'responsibility'. You know what I mean.

Is it fair to apportion blame without asking first if the 'war' should have been entered in the first place? Substitute the word 'responsible*for the word 'blame' in the post above, and I would have no quibble.


* or the word 'responsibility'. You know what I mean.

No I do not think that the US should have entered into the war as they did. I would have given aid to the South and training. But to win the war we would have taken control of N Vietnam which may have triggered a Chinese response. We could have had a Nuclear war over it. So no we should not have put combat troops on the ground. So if you want to lay responsibility down then it is the Kennedy-Johnson administrations because they directly ordered combat troops deployed.

Like I said the military didn't get it ass handed to it. The political system of the time did. Yes the political system got its collective ass handed to it by the peace movement.

isnt that what kissinger was whining about recently? that in a democracy you have to abide by the will of the people instead of the will of the military?

its our country not the armies. when the people were sick of a stupid and useless war in southeast asia, it was time to get out. so we got out.

The US military was winning its battles in Vietnam. But the politicians back home were the worst leaders in American history. There was quite a bit of attempted micromanagement of the Vietnam war. Units would ordered by politicians not to take this hill or this village just so those politicians could get votes back home. The politicians didn't really want to win Vietnam for them it just something to get votes from either by saying we oppose communism or by saying we should withdraw our troops.

isnt that what kissinger was whining about recently? that in a democracy you have to abide by the will of the people instead of the will of the military?

its our country not the armies. when the people were sick of a stupid and useless war in southeast asia, it was time to get out. so we got out.

We left a war we were winning. South Vietnam was conquered by the North because the US pulled its forces out and stopped helping them. As a result, hundreds of millions of South Vietnamese were butchered by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese allies.

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?



We lost.

The US lost.

It's not a big deal, really... no army has won EVERY war. Winning or losing wars does not prove the validity of founding principles or the lack thereof. Winning a war doesn't mean you were right, and losing a war does not mean you were wrong. It simply means that certain factors related to the conflict were not in your favor.

The US losing Vietnam was not like, say, Germany losing World War II or Napoleon losing his war throughout Europe. Our military was far from decimated or demoralized - we arguably still had the most powerful military in the world, rivalled only by the Soviet Union. We still have, by far, the most powerful military force in the world.

My point is, to those that feel hurt by the recognition that we lost Vietnam... it didn't hurt us much. Vietnam was a concern because the Soviet Union was a concern... the Soviet Union is dead and the communist ideology is all but dead in Vietnam. To those that are glad we lost... all I can say is, "So we lost." It didn't change the world. It's not like Spain losing its armada to Britain, or Britain losing during the American Revolution, or France losing the Napoleonic Wars, or Germany losing both World Wars, or even the Soviet Union losing in Afghanistan... the last of which was perhaps the closest comparison, until you realize that such was most likely an over-extension of the fragile Soviet economy that was in part responsible for the country's collapse.

As has been stated numerous times on this thread, you cannot win a war against a determined native insurrection short of wiping the entire population out. The old European Empires were only able to be built because they had a technological advantage that simply does not exist anymore. The Romans and Mongols were able to do so because they wiped their opposition out. Neither option exists in this day and age.

The fact that we lost, however, is not a slight against us or our troops - no modern military could have won that war on the conditions which it was fought. Sure, the losses were absolutely awful from a "value of human life" perspective. From a military perspective vis-a-vis an enemy's forces, however, they were nothing - hardly even a scratch.

My point is that no one need feel slighted that we lost, and those that are glad we lost should not gloat too much. It was a loss, but it wasn't an awful loss militarily by any stretch of the imagination.

We left a war we were winning. South Vietnam was conquered by the North because the US pulled its forces out and stopped helping them. As a result, hundreds of millions of South Vietnamese were butchered by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese allies.Were there hundreds of millions to be butchered, really? Tens? Some?

isnt that what kissinger was whining about recently? that in a democracy you have to abide by the will of the people instead of the will of the military?

its our country not the armies. when the people were sick of a stupid and useless war in southeast asia, it was time to get out. so we got out.

Well as a former military vet I will have to agree. Kissinger may have sour grapes about it. Fact is that the US is "We the People". So that is life. I don't agree with what happened in Vietnam as far as the military goes. My opinion we should have played to win rather then containment and then pull out. However more of my countrymen decided that it wasnt worth it. So Nixon ran and won on a pullout platform. That's just the way it works. Like it or not.

Were there hundreds of millions to be butchered, really? Tens? Some?

Given that as of 1973 South Vietnam had an estimated population of about 20 million, I think we can safely say 'no'.

first off vietnam wasnt a war it was a (police action) like iraq is was will be again and further more. the fact that it wasnt the military nagates that fact of weather it was or not of who lost the (WAR) IF it was up too me i would have nuked the slant eyed freaks and blasted every one much like should be done in iraq the problem with wars like this is that their limited the united states has never lost a war that is plan truth never and never will

Were there hundreds of millions to be butchered, really? Tens? Some?

be creative 0.45 hundreds of millions, or some such figure (warning, figure pulled out of arse)

be creative 0.45 hundreds of millions, or some such figure (warning, figure pulled out of arse)

Hey, what's a factor of a hundred between friends. It isn't as if they're claiming something like WWII lasted 600 years. Oh wait...

We left a war we were winning. South Vietnam was conquered by the North because the US pulled its forces out and stopped helping them. As a result, hundreds of millions of South Vietnamese were butchered by the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese allies.

while it was devastating to those who relied on us to protect them, there was no real will in south vietnam to have a seperate country. it would have happened no matter when we pulled out.

we should have done more to protect our puppets there. that is our shame.

Hey, what's a factor of a hundred between friends. It isn't as if they're claiming something like WWII lasted 600 years. Oh wait...
Huh?

Are you implying that it didn't?

;)

first off vietnam wasnt a war it was a (police action) like iraq is was will be again and further more. the fact that it wasnt the military nagates that fact of weather it was or not of who lost the (WAR) IF it was up too me i would have nuked the slant eyed freaks and blasted every one much like should be done in iraq the problem with wars like this is that their limited the united states has never lost a war that is plan truth never and never will

I don't want to discourage you from posting here, but if you paid more attention to your typing, punctuation and spelling I think we would all find it a lot easier to follow your arguments.

we should have done more to protect our puppets there. that is our shame.
Seriously.

I mean, if we keep turning our collective backs on our puppets... who's going to want to be our puppets in the future?

We absolutely MUST have more foresight than that if we're going to make it as a world-dominating superpower.

Planning, folks.

I don't want to discourage you from posting here, but if you paid more attention to your typing, punctuation and spelling I think we would all find it a lot easier to follow your arguments.
I don't want to discourage him/her either, but a nice flow of seamless logic would certainly help as well.

I don't want to discourage him/her either, but a nice flow of seamless logic would certainly help as well.

Hey. I'm being positive here: from what I am able to make sense of I see no glaring fallacies, flaws or other assorted felonies against logic. More than can be said for some of the more eloquent posters here.

Not to say I agree with their sentiments, and the assumption that the future will be the same as the past ("the US has never lost a war, and so never will") is questionable, but that is minor compared to some of the cracked reasoning we see here on a daily basis.

I don't want to discourage you from posting here, but if you paid more attention to your typing, punctuation and spelling I think we would all find it a lot easier to follow your arguments.

His argument = Nuke everything because we can, and because they are different from us.:)

:headbang:

The US lost.

It's not a big deal, really... no army has won EVERY war. Winning or losing wars does not prove the validity of founding principles or the lack thereof. Winning a war doesn't mean you were right, and losing a war does not mean you were wrong. It simply means that certain factors related to the conflict were not in your favor.

The US losing Vietnam was not like, say, Germany losing World War II or Napoleon losing his war throughout Europe. Our military was far from decimated or demoralized - we arguably still had the most powerful military in the world, rivalled only by the Soviet Union. We still have, by far, the most powerful military force in the world.

My point is, to those that feel hurt by the recognition that we lost Vietnam... it didn't hurt us much. Vietnam was a concern because the Soviet Union was a concern... the Soviet Union is dead and the communist ideology is all but dead in Vietnam. To those that are glad we lost... all I can say is, "So we lost." It didn't change the world. It's not like Spain losing its armada to Britain, or Britain losing during the American Revolution, or France losing the Napoleonic Wars, or Germany losing both World Wars, or even the Soviet Union losing in Afghanistan... the last of which was perhaps the closest comparison, until you realize that such was most likely an over-extension of the fragile Soviet economy that was in part responsible for the country's collapse.

As has been stated numerous times on this thread, you cannot win a war against a determined native insurrection short of wiping the entire population out. The old European Empires were only able to be built because they had a technological advantage that simply does not exist anymore. The Romans and Mongols were able to do so because they wiped their opposition out. Neither option exists in this day and age.

The fact that we lost, however, is not a slight against us or our troops - no modern military could have won that war on the conditions which it was fought. Sure, the losses were absolutely awful from a "value of human life" perspective. From a military perspective vis-a-vis an enemy's forces, however, they were nothing - hardly even a scratch.

My point is that no one need feel slighted that we lost, and those that are glad we lost should not gloat too much. It was a loss, but it wasn't an awful loss militarily by any stretch of the imagination.

Hear, hear.

Really, though, why the hell are we still talking about this?

Hey. I'm being positive here: from what I am able to make sense of I see no glaring fallacies, flaws or other assorted felonies against logic. More than can be said for some of the more eloquent posters here.

Not to say I agree with their sentiments, and the assumption that the future will be the same as the past ("the US has never lost a war, and so never will") is questionable, but that is minor compared to some of the cracked reasoning we see here on a daily basis.

Hmm... personally, I found the whole, "IF it was up too me i would have nuked the slant eyed freaks and blasted every one much like should be done in iraq the problem with wars like this is that their limited the united states has never lost a war that is plan truth never and never will" thing a tad questionable and even objectionable on a certain level, but that might just be me. ;)

----
Edit

Scratch that. I see your point. No fallacies per se... but not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. ;)
But then again, I'm all for positive reinforcement too.

Don't do drugs or drink while driving, kids! :D

the united states has never lost a war that is plan truth never and never will

'its as plan as teh nos on yuor fece.

Hmm... personally, I found the whole, "IF it was up too me i would have nuked the slant eyed freaks and blasted every one much like should be done in iraq the problem with wars like this is that their limited the united states has never lost a war that is plan truth never and never will" thing a tad questionable and even objectionable on a certain level, but that might just be me. ;)

Well, he's either racist, or he was just demonizing the enemy. The former is questionable, but the latter is meh.

Hmm... personally, I found the whole, "IF it was up too me i would have nuked the slant eyed freaks and blasted every one much like should be done in iraq the problem with wars like this is that their limited the united states has never lost a war that is plan truth never and never will" thing a tad questionable and even objectionable on a certain level, but that might just be me. ;)

Objectionable? Certainly. Logically questionable? Only on the basis of whether the Iraqis are slant-eyed or not. Logic is pretty darn silent on matters of ethics unless you feed in ethical propositions first.

Objectionable? Certainly.

Only so much as if you cringe at racist remarks.

His argument = Nuke everything because we can, and because they are different from us.:)

:headbang:

You've got to kill people to have respect for people. Um, uh... You've got to kill some people, anyway, you can't kill everybody... uh, 'cause you wouldn't have anybody left to respect if you did.

Objectionable? Certainly. Logically questionable? Only on the basis of whether the Iraqis are slant-eyed or not. Logic is pretty darn silent on matters of ethics unless you feed in ethical propositions first.

Ah yes, I caught that.

But I disagree with his logic completely.

He has failed to show whether the Iraqis are slant-eyed or not... its a glaring hole in his logical process and I'm just not going to let it pass so easily.

If he had shown that part of his case, he might have a logical argument (albeit a still very wrong one).

:p

You've got to kill people to have respect for people. Um, uh... You've got to kill some people, anyway, you can't kill everybody... uh, 'cause you wouldn't have anybody left to respect if you did.

Well, you theoretically could kill everyone but, say, three people, who you could immediately subjugate and have respect through fear.

Ah yes, I caught that.

But I disagree with his logic completely.

He has failed to show whether the Iraqis are slant-eyed or not... its a glaring hole in his logical process and I'm just not going to let it pass so easily.

If he had shown that part of his case, he might have a logical argument (albeit a still very wrong one).

:p

How much of an angular depression counts as a "slant?" Once this definition is established, you could find out whether they are "slant-eyed" or not.

How much of an angular depression counts as a "slant?" Once this definition is established, you could find out whether they are "slant-eyed" or not.
This is very true.

Also... my problem with it is this. I'm not entirely convinced that Hitler, in some strange anachronistic twist in history, didn't make the exact same argument against the Jews just prior to the Holocaust.

Never again. I'm not going to let someone get away with it a second time based on the same poor reasoning.

Human life is just too damned valuable.

Hey. I'm being positive here: from what I am able to make sense of I see no glaring fallacies, flaws or other assorted felonies against logic. More than can be said for some of the more eloquent posters here.

Not to say I agree with their sentiments, and the assumption that the future will be the same as the past ("the US has never lost a war, and so never will") is questionable, but that is minor compared to some of the cracked reasoning we see here on a daily basis.We need an Autodafé.

No ifs and buts after that!

Seriously.

I mean, if we keep turning our collective backs on our puppets... who's going to want to be our puppets in the future?

We absolutely MUST have more foresight than that if we're going to make it as a world-dominating superpower.

Planning, folks.

it seems a bit shallow but if we are going to get the worlds dictators, puppets and scoundrels to do our dirty work we have to have a reputation of backing them up when the going gets rough.

Also... my problem with it is this. I'm not entirely convinced that Hitler, in some strange anachronistic twist in history, didn't make the exact same argument against the Jews just prior to the Holocaust.

Never again. I'm not going to let someone get away with it a second time based on the same poor reasoning.
Aww crap.

Just killed the thread via Godwin's Law.

Guess I lose. *sigh*...

:D

Ahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
In war, everybody loses badly. In Vietnam, the US lost even worse.

This is very true.

Also... my problem with it is this. I'm not entirely convinced that Hitler, in some strange anachronistic twist in history, didn't make the exact same argument against the Jews just prior to the Holocaust.

I assure you he didn't. The slant of eyes had nothing to do with it. It was those damned big noses.

Never again. I'm not going to let someone get away with it a second time based on the same poor reasoning.

What, posting on NS General?

Human life is just too damned valuable.

Well, I met this gun for hire who'd do a job for only five thousand pounds.

Ahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
In war, everybody loses badly. In Vietnam, the US lost even worse.

Well, that's a load. People can win in war. Take, for example, if the US nuked a small nation to oblivion, and they were the only ones with nukes. The US didn't lose anything -- theywon -- but they lost everything.

Well, that's a load. People can win in war. Take, for example, if the US nuked a small nation to oblivion, and we were the only ones with nukes. We didn't lose anything -- we won -- but they lost everything.

Not if you're going to war over possession of their fertile territory you didn't.

Well, that's a load. People can win in war. Take, for example, if the US nuked a small nation to oblivion, and they were the only ones with nukes. The US didn't lose anything -- theywon -- but they lost everything.

I was trying to say something mildly profound about how killing is wrong and all that crap, but whatever.

Not if you're going to war over possession of their fertile territory you didn't.

Well, I didn't say WHY they were going to war, I just said they went.

I was trying to say something mildly profound about how killing is wrong and all that crap, but whatever.

You and your silly profoundness. What a stupid idea, saying something profound in NS General.

And now for something completely different:

http://www.beyond.fr/picsflora/larch092.jpg

The larch.

http://www.beyond.fr/picsflora/larch092.jpg

The larch.

I love you.

Well, I didn't say WHY they were going to war, I just said they went.



You and your silly profoundness. What a stupid idea, saying something profound in NS General.

And now for something completely different:

http://www.beyond.fr/picsflora/larch092.jpg

The larch.

And now.

http://www.keele.ac.uk/university/arboretum/photos/horse_chestnut2.jpg

The Horse Chestnut. *cheering and applause*

I was trying to say something mildly profound about how killing is wrong and all that crap, but whatever.

But sometimes killing is justified.

Well, that's a load. People can win in war. Take, for example, if the US nuked a small nation to oblivion, and they were the only ones with nukes. The US didn't lose anything -- theywon -- but they lost everything.

They would have lost their morality, decency, and humanity. And yes, you lost in Vietnam.

Yes, yes we did lose. We failed in our objective, and in doing so lost 50000 of our people and killed a million of theirs. The error was truly monumental, and we failed.

Not that I'd have it any other way(except the option of it never having occurred.). We thwarted(or allowed to be thwarted) a democratic, UN sanctioned reunification process, in support of a bigoted despot. We fabricated a casus belli, and by doing so we started a deadly conflict. We were very much wrong.

I find to whole notion of saying the USA could have won the war if they merely had the guts to nuke something to be rather moot.

In that same line of reasoning even france could have won the war with their nukes. Yes those cheese eating surrendering monkeys as some people tend to call them (never mind that a few times they pretty much conquered all of europe)

Thank God there is still such a thing as a good wholesome notion of civilization, with a dash of enlightenment added to the mix that withholds us from actually making these insane remarks.

I believe that during a cease-fire conferance an American general made a haughty remark to a North-Vietnamese general that the US army pretty much won every battle. His was most fittingly: "Yes you did, but that's irrelavant".

I find to whole notion of saying the USA could have won the war if they merely had the guts to nuke something to be rather moot.

In that same line of reasoning even france could have won the war with their nukes. Yes those cheese eating surrendering monkeys as some people tend to call them (never mind that a few times they pretty much conquered all of europe)

Thank God there is still such a thing as a good wholesome notion of civilization, with a dash of enlightenment added to the mix that withholds us from actually making these insane remarks.

I believe that during a cease-fire conferance an American general made a haughty remark to a North-Vietnamese general that the US army pretty much won every battle. His was most fittingly: "Yes you did, but that's irrelavant".

The vietnamese never even invaded Europe.

The vietnamese never even invaded Europe.

....I think your remark is the horrible result of misinterperting my words. In what way what so ever did I gave you the impression that the Vietnamese invaded Europe?

I merely offered you an analogy that a nation such as France has the same scorched earth ability as the US if they wanted to bring a nation such a vietnam.

There's only one way to end an insurgency in an occupied country. Only two groups have done it. The Romans and the Mongols. Are you honestly saying that you are willing to do what they did?
And the Romans failed in Scotland

But sometimes killing is justified.

Not in my opinion.

This is very true.

Also... my problem with it is this. I'm not entirely convinced that Hitler, in some strange anachronistic twist in history, didn't make the exact same argument against the Jews just prior to the Holocaust.

Never again. I'm not going to let someone get away with it a second time based on the same poor reasoning.

Human life is just too damned valuable.
How so I doubt that anything that there is 6,000,000,000 of is very valuable

Well, that's a load. People can win in war. Take, for example, if the US nuked a small nation to oblivion, and they were the only ones with nukes. The US didn't lose anything -- theywon -- but they lost everything.
No way.

In your scenario, they lost a couple of nukes... wasted them on some small nation.

Those nukes aren't free, you know. They cost lots of tax dollars - tax dollars that could have been spent to feed the hungry. Or could have been contributed to the fund to pull Timmy out of the well. Or some nonsense like that.

Besides, the loss of those nukes translates into the lost ability to blow up the world .02 times... and we can't have that, now can we?

Everyone loses in war. :D

I assure you he didn't. The slant of eyes had nothing to do with it. It was those damned big noses.



What, posting on NS General?



Well, I met this gun for hire who'd do a job for only five thousand pounds.
Hell in DC the gangs err excuse me The underprivilaged minoritys will do it for $20.00 and a pair of nice sneakers

what do you have against American college professors? Not all of them are liberals.
Only about 80% the rest are outright Socalists

....I think your remark is the horrible result of misinterperting my words. In what way what so ever did I gave you the impression that the Vietnamese invaded Europe?

I merely offered you an analogy that a nation such as France has the same scorched earth ability as the US if they wanted to bring a nation such a vietnam.

LOL. It is the result of your own wording. You said, "they almost conquered Europe twice." You didn't say France. I thought you were referring to the Mongols and trying to say that all asians were the same or something to that effect. I was just saying that Vietnamese are not Mongols and the Mongols never even made it into southeast Asia. Believe it or not, the people in southeast asia actually kicked the Mongols butts at the time.

Yeah, it's not like the only way an insurgency has ever been defeated is through a complete massacre of all of the people in the region. Oh, it is?

You know nothing of war.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that assumption..you might be suprised

I've known some great American College professors that were neither Communists nor Liberals.
If you say Noam Chumpsky I will come over there and thrash you

No, the fault was letting a government defy the power of the United States of America.

Ahhh, so you are a proponent of PNAC aren't you? All nations must bow to the will of the American Empire or face utter destruction.


After a people are slain the next country will be far less willing to fight against America.

That doesn't work, and if you had a little intelligence to study your words, you'd see it too. A nation without people is simply a hunk of land. What, you expect people to spring out of the earth after you've killed everyone there?

And frankly, your "final solution" sucks. I am of the opinion people of your type contribute nothing of worth to anyone or anything beyond fertilizer once you're dead.

Didn't say they betrayed anyone. America is a Democracy. If the populace wants the government to pull out then that is the right of the populace. However the decision to put restraints on the military and then pull out was not conducive to a military victory.
The populance was hoaxed into it by the mainstream media.
at one point the TV audance was treated to the sight of a burning C-130 every day the newspukes would go out and set off a smoke marker in a bird that had run of the runway and was mired in the mud
Charlie finaly got it with a rocket [took them 4 days]

My god, you people are insane. I just saw genocide advocated at least once by about 5 people.
Jesus.

Yes we lost.

LOL. It is the result of your own wording. You said, "they almost conquered Europe twice." You didn't say France. I thought you were referring to the Mongols and trying to say that all asians were the same or something to that effect. I was just saying that Vietnamese are not Mongols and the Mongols never even made it into southeast Asia. Believe it or not, the people in southeast asia actually kicked the Mongols butts at the time.

Ah, not quite seeing as I made the comment directly after I mentioned the french. I would have thought it more locigal to make that connection, but seeing as you have made the mistake I seem to have failed in the attempt.

As for all asians being the same...hell, not even two people can be considered the same....

Only about 80% the rest are outright Socalists

Hogwash.

Only about 80% the rest are outright Socalists

80% are not socialists? That's a rather lot. Oh, and socialism is not necessarily communism. Communism, however, is necessarily socialism. And liberalism is not socialism. Liberalism endorses a free market economy.

LOL. It is the result of your own wording. You said, "they almost conquered Europe twice." You didn't say France. I thought you were referring to the Mongols and trying to say that all asians were the same or something to that effect. I was just saying that Vietnamese are not Mongols and the Mongols never even made it into southeast Asia. Believe it or not, the people in southeast asia actually kicked the Mongols butts at the time.

The Mongols would've kicked their butts if they'd still had Genghis.

Ah, yes that. 58,000 American casualties versus over 1 million NVA and 'Cong, plus we won every major battle of the war.

Since win does mopping the floor with the enemy constitute losing?

The Americans main strategy was to win the war by body count. You cannot win a war by body count. Germany didn't in World War II, the Soviets didn't do it in Afghanistan, and the Yanks certainly aren't doing it now in Iraq. And also, to the genius who came up with this topic, there was no 'Soviet domination strategy' as much as there was an American domination strategy. It was an idea that the Americans came up with called the 'Domino Effect' in which they believed that if a country fell to communism, then the countries surrounding it would fall as well. Perhaps you weren't watching the news in the 90s when all of the Warsaw Pact countries became democratic within a very short period of time. The idea of worldwide communism was abandoned during the Stalin era.

The Americans main strategy was to win the war by body count. You cannot win a war by body count.

Body count was guided more by showing the folks back home they were accomplishing something thus justifying the continuation of the war.

Germany didn't in World War II, the Soviets didn't do it in Afghanistan, and the Yanks certainly aren't doing it now in Iraq. And also, to the genius who came up with this topic, there was no 'Soviet domination strategy'


Hmm then what was that failed invasion of Poland in the 20's. Motive was to bring the revolution to them.


t was an idea that the Americans came up with called the 'Domino Effect' in which they believed that if a country fell to communism, then the countries surrounding it would fall as well. Perhaps you weren't watching the news in the 90s when all of the Warsaw Pact countries became democratic within a very short period of time. The idea of worldwide communism was abandoned during the Stalin era.


Hindsight is fun isn't it?

Yeah, it's not like the only way an insurgency has ever been defeated is through a complete massacre of all of the people in the region. Oh, it is?

You know nothing of war.

I want to say Malaya.

The Americans main strategy was to win the war by body count. You cannot win a war by body count. Germany didn't in World War II, the Soviets didn't do it in Afghanistan, and the Yanks certainly aren't doing it now in Iraq. And also, to the genius who came up with this topic, there was no 'Soviet domination strategy' as much as there was an American domination strategy. It was an idea that the Americans came up with called the 'Domino Effect' in which they believed that if a country fell to communism, then the countries surrounding it would fall as well. Perhaps you weren't watching the news in the 90s when all of the Warsaw Pact countries became democratic within a very short period of time. The idea of worldwide communism was abandoned during the Stalin era.

Actually worldwide communism was not abandoned until well after the communist era.
You have to realize that even intelligence agencies weren't perfect. The CIA was telling us the Soviets wanted total world domination. And the KGB was telling them the same about us. You're looking at everything with 20/20 hindsight. Try looking at it with just the information they had available at the time.

I want to say Malaya.

Except that during the Malayan Emergency, it was the British and local authorities handling the job. And although the British certainly produced their fair share of incompetent military leaders in the past, at least they recognized a "kill everything that moves" strategy was unworkable.

From what I've seen, most US military officers/policy makers seem to think that a bigger hammer will solve any problem.

The CIA was telling us the Soviets wanted total world domination.

MacArthyism is not quite CIA. Maybe the Soviets wanted to expand, maybe not. But one thing is for certain, fear mongering and acting on it did more damage than anything the Soviets could have done to America short of all out war.

the US would have been better off leaving them alone and letting communism defeat itself, they would have saved 60,000 dead, hundreds of thousands of physically or psychologically wounded and untold billions of dollars. If they would have allowed Vietnam to determine it's own path and become communist in the 50s when the French were defeated, they most likely would have tried it, not liked it and rejected in the 80s and 90s like most other Asian communists.yeah.. same goes for Iraq.

Except that during the Malayan Emergency, it was the British and local authorities handling the job. And although the British certainly produced their fair share of incompetent military leaders in the past, at least they recognized a "kill everything that moves" strategy was unworkable.

From what I've seen, most US military officers/policy makers seem to think that a bigger hammer will solve any problem.

Yah. I'm pointing out though that it is possible to defeat an insurgency without killing everyone in sight.

Vietnam was a loser from the get go however. Mostly because of the schizophrena in the US about indochina. Flooding the country with canaries during the sixties didn't help either.

Yah. I'm pointing out though that it is possible to defeat an insurgency without killing everyone in sight.


Oh, it is possible. Just not with US leaders. Unless you plan on repopulating the land later with your own citizens that is.

Thing is, US military training and mentality is geared entirely towards this one simple concept. Kill people and break things.

That's it.

The British, who at least had an Empire for a couple hundred years, had a tradition of training their appropriate officers in matters related to imperial management and administration.

Incompetent colonial administrators after all, were unprofitable.

Oh, it is possible. Just not with US leaders. Unless you plan on repopulating the land later with your own citizens that is.

Thing is, US military training and mentality is geared entirely towards this one simple concept. Kill people and break things.

That's it.

The British, who at least had an Empire for a couple hundred years, had a tradition of training their appropriate officers in matters related to imperial management and administration.

Incompetent colonial administrators after all, were unprofitable.

LOL. That's because Britain, unlike America, actually wanted to annex every place they went into.

Man, some of these people have real difficulty in accepting the fact that the good ol' US of A might have lost a war.

Just as well the thread isn't about the 1812 war against Britain/Canada.

Of course the US lost in Vietnam. It doesn't matter at all that the US won every major battle. They were fighting on the side of a lukewarm ally, South Vietnam was politically divided between those who were pro-US and pro-North Vietnam. The goals were somewhat ill-defined and the reason for the war (domino theory) was ludicrous. The goal of the US was to defeat Communism in Vietnam and they failed at that.

Ironically, the US would have been better off leaving them alone and letting communism defeat itself, they would have saved 60,000 dead, hundreds of thousands of physically or psychologically wounded and untold billions of dollars. If they would have allowed Vietnam to determine it's own path and become communist in the 50s when the French were defeated, they most likely would have tried it, not liked it and rejected in the 80s and 90s like most other Asian communists.

You win the thread.

QFT

America never paid Vietnam the war damage they were due, so I guess in their opinion they must have "lost" nothing.

There's only one way to end an insurgency in an occupied country. Only two groups have done it. The Romans and the Mongols. Are you honestly saying that you are willing to do what they did?

Have I missed the point entirely if I think that the Romans beat insurgencies by sleeping with the natives?

I want to say Malaya.

Can I say Northern Ireland?

Did we really lose Vietnam or was the withdrawal just part of our overall strategy in the battle against global Soviet domination?
What really constitutes defeat?

You may just have lost......

LOL. That's because Britain, unlike America, actually wanted to annex every place they went into.

Well, you see, unlike the USA, at least the British were honest with themselves, as deplorable as their dealings with pre-colonial territories were.

The USA as it stands is trying to do the same, all the while trying to lie to it's people that it isn't spreading the American empire, oh no, that would be undemocratic.

America, because of its love of being hypocritical, is incompetent in matters of imperial administration even though it's doing just that.

In the short term, the US lost the war as a military operation. No question.

But, in the long term, if you figure this is a Communism vs. capitalism war, the US has definitely won.

http://static.flickr.com/6/8415922_0e09511b4e_m.jpg

Looks like capitalism is outstripping and assimilating everything else in Vietnam

We can even make a further observation.

Did the UK, France, etc., really win WW I?

In the short term, yes.

In the long term, no.

They had to fight Germany all over again.

I think that until you've waited 20 or 30 years, and see how things turn out, you can't really say whether you've "won" or "lost" a war.

They would have lost their morality, decency, and humanity. And yes, you lost in Vietnam.

Congratulations, you are the 7036 person to take my deadpan sarcasm as seriousness. You win a pie.

http://www.edheller.com/chocolatedeathpie.jpg

But one side note: Where the hell did I say anything about Vietnam?

No way.

In your scenario, they lost a couple of nukes... wasted them on some small nation.

Those nukes aren't free, you know. They cost lots of tax dollars - tax dollars that could have been spent to feed the hungry. Or could have been contributed to the fund to pull Timmy out of the well. Or some nonsense like that.

Besides, the loss of those nukes translates into the lost ability to blow up the world .02 times... and we can't have that, now can we?

Everyone loses in war. :D

Well, by that logic, no one can win in ANYTHING. It's a matter of cost-benefit.

So, how much of a monetary value do you place on entertainment? Personally, I think that to be able to see the world's largest fireworks display counterbalances the cost of the nuclear weapons. Also, as the weapons were ALREADY CREATED, then you're not actually losing anything by detonating them.

As for losing 0.02%, it probably translates more to 0.007%, which really is a miniscule amount. Now, if it were, say, 0.05%, then I would be worried (we need to ensure the total annihilation of all living things come Armageddon, after all), but 0.007% really isn't worth worrying about.

Yes, Americans, deal with it. You can't win everything. You're not invincible.

This reminds me of a scene near the end of the film "A Fish Called Wanda". Otto, the American is talking to Archie the Englisman;
Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie.
Archie: [going into a cowboy-like drawl] I'm tellin' ya baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide REAL GOOD.

That pretty much says it to me. :D

And now.

http://www.keele.ac.uk/university/arboretum/photos/horse_chestnut2.jpg

The Horse Chestnut. *cheering and applause*

:D

You win.

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/silly-stuff/the-larch/larch-12.jpg

Yes it is true that Canada did not send its army to defend South Vietnam but it is also true that the Canadian government encouraged its people to join the US military and to sell weapons to the US for use in Vietnam.

12 billion dollars worth in fact.

Remember Agent Orange, the worst weapon ever used in Vietnam? It was invented by Canada and given to the US to use in Vietnam.

http://bluemapleleaf.blogspot.com/2005/02/cbc-rewrites-history-denies-canadian_05.html

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/part2.html

The Canadian government was not pleased that the memo was made public. It indicated that at a crucial time in the Vietnam War, Canada's prime minister - the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize - not only knew about the US bombing of North Vietnam six months before it happened, but actually gave it a thumbs-up

Heck, the leaders of the US and Canada has a secret meeting and talked about nuking North Vietnam.

The Canadian government never encouraged it's citizens to join the US military. Can you please back that up that with a source that's not wikipedia or someguy.blogspot.com? Incidentally, Canada took in 2 or 3 times more draft resisters than Canadians who went south to join the military.

As for selling war materials, that still doesn't amount to outright support. By that logic, Canada, Germany, and China support the war in Iraq since those countries sell so many products to the US. Undoubtedly some of them are used in the war against Iraq, so I guess all of those countries are now in the coalition of the willing? Canada sold plenty of products to the US because we were still allies and trading partners, it doesn't mean that they agreed with the war.

Why are you so determined to show that other countries supported the Vietnam War? There were plenty of countries that opposed the Vietnam War but remained US allies. It's possible to disagree on a matter of policy and yet remain friends and allies in all other respects. For example, Canada opposed the war in Iraq, but remains a committed partner in the war in Afghanistan.

Why are you so determined to show that other countries supported the Vietnam War? There were plenty of countries that opposed the Vietnam War but remained US allies. It's possible to disagree on a matter of policy and yet remain friends and allies in all other respects. For example, Canada opposed the war in Iraq, but remains a committed partner in the war in Afghanistan.

He's determined because he's apparently made his mind up that old lingering blame needs must be shared - that, and he seems to be on some kinda semi-dissipated "we're not nearly as consistently incompetent as the rest of the world makes us out to be - we're still number one!1one! trip".

Yes, it was a military failure.

You may have killed an astonishingly large amount of people, given their next generation horrible mutations, and ruined a fair part of their land, but that doesn't mean that you won.

You failed in your objective, which was to stop 'Communism' (Vietnam was more socialist than communist, but that's a different thread). It took over. It may have then fallen on its arse in the mid-eighties to early nineties, but for the time it triumphed.

Even if you had left the country to vote on the issue, and didn't kill anyone, it still would have collapsed in that period due to the downfall of the USSR and the economic liberalisation of China, which set a precedent on the issue.

Did America Loose Vietnam? Yes we lost it alright! You would think that it would be impossible to loose an entire nation but we lost it. For years we searched under Laos thinking it got swept under the rug. Then we looked under Cambodia but it wasn't under that rig either. Then finally we found it again.

We never asked them were they have been all these years.

He's determined because he's apparently made his mind up that old lingering blame needs must be shared - that, and he seems to be on some kinda semi-dissipated "we're not nearly as consistently incompetent as the rest of the world makes us out to be - we're still number one!1one! trip".

Heh, I think you're right, it just seems a little silly that he's trying to lecture Canadians on what the Canadian government did during the Vietnam War...