Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."

Paul:

"Shortly after the Vietnam war ended Col. Tu and Col. Sumner met and they were talking about this and the American Col. said, 'your know we never lost one battle', and Col. Tu the Vietnamese said, 'Yes, but that's irrelevant.'"

I understand McCain went through a lot in Vietnam, and his emotions make it so he doesn't want to admit it was all in futility. Like Paul said after the debate, he is basing his policies on emotion and his emotional investment in this war.

Aside from war veterans who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, does anyone else get a pass at this though. Isn't saying that we could have won the Vietname war a sure sign of insanity in American politics?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."

Paul:

"Shortly after the Vietnam war ended Col. Tu and Col. Sumner met and they were talking about this and the American Col. said, 'your know we never lost one battle', and Col. Tu the Vietnamese said, 'Yes, but that's irrelevant.'"

I understand McCain went through a lot in Vietnam, and his emotions make it so he doesn't want to admit it was all in futility. Like Paul said after the debate, he is basing his policies on emotion and his emotional investment in this war.

Aside from war veterans who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, does anyone else get a pass at this though. Isn't saying that we could have won the Vietname war a sure sign of insanity in American politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly we could have won the war. Clearly the American public wasn't willing to do what was necessary to win the war. Part of that unwillingness was propoganda from the anti-war movement that distorted the realities of the battle itself, part of it was genuine pacifist beliefs, and part of it was genuine and changing cost/benefits analyses.

I don't see insanity entering into any of the above.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Wow. I'm amazed.

The Chinese fought the Vietnamese for hundreds of years and never prevailed. The French fought with them for ten years before we arrived and never prevailed. We fought them for years and never prevailed.

The war was based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that we can impose our way of life on other people through force of arms.

If you ever met some Vietnamese people you would know that they would have fought to the death for as long as it took to preserve thier national soviergnty and never become a puppet to foriegners. Though I don't even think that is a prerequisite to understand the principle, simply think of what you would do if your country was invaded.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

We could have turned Vietnam into a parking lot and never have had to put one soldier on the ground.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Victory?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."

Paul:

"Shortly after the Vietnam war ended Col. Tu and Col. Sumner met and they were talking about this and the American Col. said, 'your know we never lost one battle', and Col. Tu the Vietnamese said, 'Yes, but that's irrelevant.'"

I understand McCain went through a lot in Vietnam, and his emotions make it so he doesn't want to admit it was all in futility. Like Paul said after the debate, he is basing his policies on emotion and his emotional investment in this war.

Aside from war veterans who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, does anyone else get a pass at this though. Isn't saying that we could have won the Vietname war a sure sign of insanity in American politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly we could have won the war. Clearly the American public wasn't willing to do what was necessary to win the war. Part of that unwillingness was propoganda from the anti-war movement that distorted the realities of the battle itself, part of it was genuine pacifist beliefs, and part of it was genuine and changing cost/benefits analyses.

I don't see insanity entering into any of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The turning point really was when we pounded the living [censored] out of the North Vietnamese during the Tet offensive and Walter Cronkite went on national television, and lied to the American people that the Tet offensive was a huge military loss, and that the war was not winnable. We killed ten times as many of the enemy as they killed of us, and Cronkite said we lost. So the politicians forced us to leave Vietnam when the war was winnable, and the consequences were absolutely tragic.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."

Paul:

"Shortly after the Vietnam war ended Col. Tu and Col. Sumner met and they were talking about this and the American Col. said, 'your know we never lost one battle', and Col. Tu the Vietnamese said, 'Yes, but that's irrelevant.'"

I understand McCain went through a lot in Vietnam, and his emotions make it so he doesn't want to admit it was all in futility. Like Paul said after the debate, he is basing his policies on emotion and his emotional investment in this war.

Aside from war veterans who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, does anyone else get a pass at this though. Isn't saying that we could have won the Vietname war a sure sign of insanity in American politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly we could have won the war. Clearly the American public wasn't willing to do what was necessary to win the war. Part of that unwillingness was propoganda from the anti-war movement that distorted the realities of the battle itself, part of it was genuine pacifist beliefs, and part of it was genuine and changing cost/benefits analyses.

I don't see insanity entering into any of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The turning point really was when we pounded the living [censored] out of the North Vietnamese during the Tet offensive and Walter Cronkite went on national television, and lied to the American people that the Tet offensive was a huge military loss, and that the war was not winnable. We killed ten times as many of the enemy as they killed of us, and Cronkite said we lost. So the politicians forced us to leave Vietnam when the war was winnable, and the consequences were absolutely tragic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the long term consequences were nearly so tragic as the war advocates would have had the American public believe at that time.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I'm amazed.

The Chinese fought the Vietnamese for hundreds of years and never prevailed. The French fought with them for ten years before we arrived and never prevailed. We fought them for years and never prevailed.

The war was based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that we can impose our way of life on other people through force of arms.

If you ever met some Vietnamese people you would know that they would have fought to the death for as long as it took to preserve thier national soviergnty and never become a puppet to foriegners. Though I don't even think that is a prerequisite to understand the principle, simply think of what you would do if your country was invaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Chinese military and all of their technological prowess, and the French, who couldnt win a war with a baguette without our help? Great comparisons.

Ive had 3 Vietnamese employees, I know their character very well. I also know that they are grateful for the US intervention that made it possible for their families to emigrate to the US and held off the North from taking over. Sovereignty indeed.

Talk to Scotty Ngyuen sometime about Vietnam and our involvement.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."

Paul:

"Shortly after the Vietnam war ended Col. Tu and Col. Sumner met and they were talking about this and the American Col. said, 'your know we never lost one battle', and Col. Tu the Vietnamese said, 'Yes, but that's irrelevant.'"

I understand McCain went through a lot in Vietnam, and his emotions make it so he doesn't want to admit it was all in futility. Like Paul said after the debate, he is basing his policies on emotion and his emotional investment in this war.

Aside from war veterans who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, does anyone else get a pass at this though. Isn't saying that we could have won the Vietname war a sure sign of insanity in American politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly we could have won the war. Clearly the American public wasn't willing to do what was necessary to win the war. Part of that unwillingness was propoganda from the anti-war movement that distorted the realities of the battle itself, part of it was genuine pacifist beliefs, and part of it was genuine and changing cost/benefits analyses.

I don't see insanity entering into any of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please go on further, I like your long, analytical posts. What changed exactly?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9klk7iSCII

McCain:

"Congressmen, we never lost a battle in Vietnam. It was American public opinion that forced us to lose that conflict."

Paul:

"Shortly after the Vietnam war ended Col. Tu and Col. Sumner met and they were talking about this and the American Col. said, 'your know we never lost one battle', and Col. Tu the Vietnamese said, 'Yes, but that's irrelevant.'"

I understand McCain went through a lot in Vietnam, and his emotions make it so he doesn't want to admit it was all in futility. Like Paul said after the debate, he is basing his policies on emotion and his emotional investment in this war.

Aside from war veterans who were tortured in Vietnamese prison camps, does anyone else get a pass at this though. Isn't saying that we could have won the Vietname war a sure sign of insanity in American politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly we could have won the war. Clearly the American public wasn't willing to do what was necessary to win the war. Part of that unwillingness was propoganda from the anti-war movement that distorted the realities of the battle itself, part of it was genuine pacifist beliefs, and part of it was genuine and changing cost/benefits analyses.

I don't see insanity entering into any of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please go on further, I like your long, analytical posts. What changed exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the nature of this forum to nitpick, the huge number of influences on policy and decision making, and my eschewing of politics at the time, I'd suggest you read "The Irony of Vietnam", still the most complete analysis of the political/social/military decision making process regarding Vietnam even though it was written in the early 80s.

I just got the expanded edition of TPFAP, which will occupy me for a while.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have 3 American employees, I know their character very well. I also know that they are grateful for the British intervention that made it possible for their families to emigrate to the UK and held off the North from taking over. Sovereignty indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Clearly, the war was unwinnable. Because the government we were supporting was not supported by the people. The revolt against Diem started in the south.

Clearly the American public supported the war. As late as February 1968 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks."

Clearly it was the lies of our government, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers, and its brutality, that turned public opinion. We dropped more bombs than were dropped in the history of the world on South Vietnam, the "country" we were supposed to be defending. I suppose had we taken General LeMay's advice, and bombed the Vienamese back to the stone age, we could have killed every man, woman and child in the country and thus "won" the war." Short of that, victory was impossible.

"Insanity" is not the right word to use for McCain's viewpoint. He is simply wrong.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

We could have easily won Vietnam.
http://granitegrok.com/pix/mushroom_cloud.jpg

The question is, would it have been worth it?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

I suppose we could have risked nuclear war with China and the USSR by nuking North Vietnam. That would have "won" the war.

But given the constraints that we placed on ourselves because of the threat of a larger war with the Soviets and China, we could have stayed there fighting to this day. Or left, like we did, and let the NVA roll in shortly after we got out.

A more useful question would be, "Would the communist Soviet Union have collapsed had the West, led by the United States, failed to pursue a long-term strategy of containment." That strategy had a lot of negative consequences. But, in the end, Europe did not fall to communism. And we didn't have to fight a nuclear war to see eastern europe liberated.

I always thought of Vietnam as a long, failed battle in a longer post-WWII ideological struggle for world dominance. Would the world be a place of representative democracies? Or of Soviet style dictatorships? I think in 1947, no body knew the answer yet.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

I think I am going to go with Robert Mcnamara on this one. We saw vietnam as a piece in the cold war, which it was not, and we [censored] up. No, there was no winning the war in vietnam (outside of turning north vietnam into a parking lot which is stupid obv.)

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

This is SOB. Many believe it was either the anti-war movement or the media that lost the war. It's easier than recognizing the hubristic, ignorant, evil, murderous policies we pursued.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Insanity" is not the right word to use for McCain's viewpoint. He is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

McCain's position is intellectually indefensible. Yes, this should disqualify him as a candidate for president. A fundamental grasp on our own history is prerequisite for this position.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

We could have won Vietnam if we had never sent a troop/advisor there. Vietnam was irrelevant in terms of a power struggle between communist and democratic or republic type governments. The best way to win the "war" against communism would be to let it fizzle out through local revolutions.


It is impossible to force a system of government on people who are unwilling to accept it. The only way to succesfully convert a country's government is either: 1) completely destroy all dissidents and opponents by wiping them out (which is cleary impossible to do - killing opponents only spawns more) or 2) Peaceably working with the civil population toward making changes they want to implement. We have done a mix of both in Vietnam, and are currently doing a mix in Iraq. If we continue on our present course with the war, it will end in the same result.

Terrorism / guerilla warfare is a tactic and an ideology, not a state. You can't take on an idea physically and expect to defeat it, which is what we did in Vietnam and what we are currently doing in Iraq.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

What was there that was worth "winning"?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I'm amazed.

The Chinese fought the Vietnamese for hundreds of years and never prevailed. The French fought with them for ten years before we arrived and never prevailed. We fought them for years and never prevailed.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol wrong, wrong, wrong....

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I'm amazed.

The Chinese fought the Vietnamese for hundreds of years and never prevailed. The French fought with them for ten years before we arrived and never prevailed. We fought them for years and never prevailed.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol wrong, wrong, wrong....

[/ QUOTE ]

You gotta elaborate.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

meh i guess the last one is right, but vietnam was run by chinese and french for a long time and the idea that they were this unbeatable people is just wrong.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Well Vietnam was independent from China from the 11th century to the 18th century. France controlled Vietnam in the same way we did, they controlled all the major cities but the countriside was full of guerillas that attack them every day. If guerillas are attacking you everyday how in control are you?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Chinese fought the Vietnamese for hundreds of years and never prevailed

[/ QUOTE ]

just wrong, you are exaggerating

[ QUOTE ]
France controlled Vietnam in the same way we did, they controlled all the major cities but the countriside was full of guerillas that attack them every day

[/ QUOTE ]
this was not true until the 20th century.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Prussia never lost a battle against poland and the pols still won. None of the presidential candidates understand history...to do so would disqualify them from the position they seek.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Insanity" is not the right word to use for McCain's viewpoint. He is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

McCain's position is intellectually indefensible. Yes, this should disqualify him as a candidate for president. A fundamental grasp on our own history is prerequisite for this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would probably eliminate half the field

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

chomsky says saigon was "jewel of the orient" or pearl or sometihng, well that part is history not his opinion, his opinion was that US wanted the good stuff in VN, the resouces and other stuff, and so US either wanted to control said resources, or deny them to others.

since US achieved goal 2 of denying them to others (ie, blew the hell out of the whole country), US won the war and achieved their objective.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

The United States couldn't win the war with the strategy they had. They were committed to not ever, for any reason taking the war to the North Vietnameese by sending troops north of the DMZ. The goal was to make the South Vietnameese strong enough to defend themselves. We started to pull the rug out from under the South Vietnameese when we left in 1973 and in 1975 Congress finished the job by cutting off funds.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have 3 American employees, I know their character very well. I also know that they are grateful for the British intervention that made it possible for their families to emigrate to the UK and held off the North from taking over. Sovereignty indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, the war was unwinnable. Because the government we were supporting was not supported by the people. The revolt against Diem started in the south.

Clearly the American public supported the war. As late as February 1968 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks."

Clearly it was the lies of our government, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers, and its brutality, that turned public opinion. We dropped more bombs than were dropped in the history of the world on South Vietnam, the "country" we were supposed to be defending. I suppose had we taken General LeMay's advice, and bombed the Vienamese back to the stone age, we could have killed every man, woman and child in the country and thus "won" the war." Short of that, victory was impossible.

"Insanity" is not the right word to use for McCain's viewpoint. He is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

and so are you. <font color="white"> and you like baseball! what a maroon </font>

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
chomsky says saigon was "jewel of the orient" or pearl or sometihng, well that part is history not his opinion, his opinion was that US wanted the good stuff in VN, the resouces and other stuff, and so US either wanted to control said resources, or deny them to others.

since US achieved goal 2 of denying them to others (ie, blew the hell out of the whole country), US won the war and achieved their objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

more proof the Chomsky is a blithering anti-American idiot.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Which statement(s)?

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
more proof the Chomsky is a blithering anti-American idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah alex jones thinks chomsky is scum too.

but I mean, the whole premise of vietnam really was not to let it "fall" to the communists (a la domino theory).

so if you can't prevent a communist takeover (best), then 2nd best by far is to level the place so the dirty commies have nothing to take over.

also in line with the domino theory is that other countries will think twice before going commie, because they will see that at best their revolution will win them a totally destroyed country.

now that's realpolitik.

also modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

What was there to win in Vietnam that was so important that we should have gone beyond the 60,000 americans killed and 150,000 wounded? Not to mention the millions of Vietnamese, if that even enters the mind of the war supporters. Communism was going to collapse on its own, us fighting wars like this only helped radical leaders stay in power because it gave them a legitimate scapegoat.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, I should have said "modern day total scum p;oliticians".
people like newt gingrich. probably most high level right wing republicans.

I'm almost positive that piece of human garbage UN guy Bolton holds that view, to name another.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, the war was unwinnable. Because the government we were supporting was not supported by the people. The revolt against Diem started in the south.

Clearly the American public supported the war. As late as February 1968 23% of Americans defined themselves as "doves" and 61% "hawks."

Clearly it was the lies of our government, as revealed in the Pentagon Papers, and its brutality, that turned public opinion. We dropped more bombs than were dropped in the history of the world on South Vietnam, the "country" we were supposed to be defending. I suppose had we taken General LeMay's advice, and bombed the Vienamese back to the stone age, we could have killed every man, woman and child in the country and thus "won" the war." Short of that, victory was impossible.

"Insanity" is not the right word to use for McCain's viewpoint. He is simply wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

and so are you. <font color="white"> and you like baseball! what a maroon </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate? I am genuinely interested.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.



sorry, I should have said "modern day total scum p;oliticians".
people like newt gingrich. probably most high level right wing republicans.

I'm almost positive that piece of human garbage UN guy Bolton holds that view, to name another.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol I type in

youtube vietnam good war

in google, and one of the first things is that crappy bill maher show where bill himself thinks the vietnam war was good in the sense that it stopped communism. what a tool.

another link where bush said in a press conference basically that we should have stayed in vietnam and won it or somethign like that.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"modern politicians have stated that vietnam was a good war precisely because it deterred other countries from going commie."

Ridiculous. The fact that American leaders didn't understand that Vietnamese communism was related to Vietnamese issues doesn't mean other countries' leaders didn't get it. Which modern politicians have called Vietnam a "good war"? Seems to me politicains from all over the political specturm feel (for different reasons) it was a disaster.



sorry, I should have said "modern day total scum p;oliticians".
people like newt gingrich. probably most high level right wing republicans.

I'm almost positive that piece of human garbage UN guy Bolton holds that view, to name another.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol I type in

youtube vietnam good war

in google, and one of the first things is that crappy bill maher show where bill himself thinks the vietnam war was good in the sense that it stopped communism. what a tool.

another link where bush said in a press conference basically that we should have stayed in vietnam and won it or somethign like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe the quote was driven by the millions of vietnamese and cambodians killed, but i'm not 100% sure...

leaving vietnam had some very severe negative consequences, and to ignore them or dismiss the people who point them out as idiots or insane illustrates either a large ignorance pertaining to the war or dishonesty.

Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
 

Do the consequences of leaving Vietnam outweigh consequences that would have happened to both Americans and Vietnamese if the US never involved itself in the first place? In other words, US does not intervene in Vietnam &gt; US intervening in Vietnam?


Pertaining to the current war, and I quote Ron Paul,

"The argument [for the continuation of the war] has been reduced to this: if we leave now, Iraq will be a mess, immplying the implausible, that if we stay, it won't be a mess."

In re: ikestoys last comment,

Leaving Vietnam had severe consequences, and it is important to point those out. However, more severe consequences would have resulted if the US stayed (more lives on both sides lost, further destruction of Vietnam geographically) rather than thrown in the towel on the whole situation.


The US has had a problem with "winning" WARS (not battles) since World War II and I believe this is a direct result of trying to play world police and mediator. Every major conflict we have been involved with since WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq part I, Somalia, Kosovo, and others I am forgetting) has ended without a "victory" in the traditional sense of the word. The 'bad guy' was never truly defeated and these crises evolved and settled as a result of internal politics, not pressure from abroad.