Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:03 PM
lehighguy lehighguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,290
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:08 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:27 PM
lehighguy lehighguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,290
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:27 PM
JayTee JayTee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,149
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:29 PM
lehighguy lehighguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,290
Default Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?

Victory?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:33 PM
mmctrab mmctrab is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Steeler country
Posts: 478
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:39 PM
Ineedaride2 Ineedaride2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: *
Posts: 1,517
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:39 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:41 PM
ConstantineX ConstantineX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Like PETA, ride for my animals
Posts: 658
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:53 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.