|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
Victory?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
The US pretty much DID WIN the war against (South) Vietnam. The real aim was to 'prevent economic and social development in Vietnam'. In this sense the aims of the government and the success of the military proved the war to be a great success- of course by any moral and sane view the war was a tragic disgrace, but, Vietnam remains to be a failure with no meaningful development and this was the ONLY viable aim of the US government. We now KNOW that the claims that Vietnam had important material resources (tin,rubber ...) has been proven false and their material insignificant, the containment of communism - hardly, Vietnam was more nationalism than communism, domino theory- McNamara even admits that was BS, Minh; puppet of the Kremlin? proven to be bs, protect national security- lol... as stated the US succeeded in its only real aims in Vietnam; halting socio-economic development and meaningful prosperity of the Vietnamise.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
I think that anybody with a modicum of intelligence would say that the claim that in a strictly military sense, the US won the war in Vietnam [/ QUOTE ] Midge, I have read anti-vietnam war essays that state the military had 'unprecedented success' in Vietnam... |
|
|