The U.S. did not lose the Vietnam war because of a lack of firepower, it lost that war due to a lack of political will.

The biggest obstacle to winning that war was the administrations unwillingness to eliminate the source of the problem there which was the North Vietnamese channeling of war materials to the gang popularly known as the Viet Cong.

In addition, the South went through government changes faster than most U.S. teenagers change their underwear.

The political will to win was not present. The soldiers in the field did what they could under the restrictions that they were placed under. Pursuit of the enemy north into North Vietnam was not permitted. Thus, the VC enjoyed a safe haven that they could operate under.

The bombing campaign against the North was too little, too late to change the outcome of the war as the ARVN had already lost all heart for the battle.

Jane Fonda (American Traitor fluff didn't help there either.

they had no objective other than stop the spread of communism to the south- when saigon fell, america lost this objective, and the war. (though it was lost well before then, heh)

its what you get when you tell your commanders to fight a war with one arm tied behind their back.

This is true, Braden. The commander's in country were prohibited from pursuing the enemy to where they were based. This was apparently due to the fear they had that China would get involved as they did during the Korean conflict. Remember Frozen Chosin!

The funny thing about it is, the Chinese had no love for the North Vietnamese communists as the North was a Soviet Client state and not Chinese. In fact, after the U.S. pulled out, the North Vietnamese were attacking the southern regions of China and pillaging and plundering the citizens thereof.

Wait there was a Vietnam war? I remember a Vietnam conflict which was more of a police action really. But do not remember the US congress actually declaring war on Vietnam. Or since 1941 for that matter.

so long as we're splitting hairs, (yes, i had to wikipedia it :P), nineteen hundred and forty two, romania, bulgaria and hungary

Same with korea although there was a clearer objective there and the US had support from various allies and there was actually more at stake (Japan might have been next).

The vietnam war didn't start out as a massive high casualty conflict for the US or as the extensive operation it became.
But yes, no clear objective or timeline. Also no real support from other countries. There was already conflict there prior to the US becoming seriously involved as well.

Was there a Vietnam war? yes. The north was "at war" with the south. The US may not have been "at war" but the french (while they were there prior to the US) certainly were.

wonder how many foreign conflicts the US has gotten dragged into simply because the French don't know how to fight.

Who says America lost?

who says america has "won" many of these tiffs

anybody with a working understanding of history, i would guess.

John Cleese in "A Fish Called Wanda" while standing in a 55 gallon unfinished BBQ grill, err, smoker, err, drum. i should probably see what the metrics call them thingies.

The thing to understand about the Vietnam War is that the vast majority of the combatants in the war on the enemy side were simply gang members of various criminal elements in the south. There were the "warlords" that ran the various regions and employed the guys who were called the VC to terrorize the indigenous population. A lot of the U.S. involvement was policing those areas to damp down the various gangs that were bombing and otherwise destroying the South's infrastructure and population rather than fighting a conventional war with the North. As general Giap said, you cannot kill an ant colony with an iron pick.

And when you only keep trying for a stalemate then the only outcome you should expect is to lose or draw.

lol some more Cerb classics to save for future quoting

+ the one where you decided that a pogrom against muslims was "LOL they arent scared of jihad" worthy

The ARVN was horrible. The southern govt was horrible. Ho Chi Mihn came to us, but we turned him down. That caused him to turn to China for support.

We simply picked the wrong side to support.

Pontius Pirate, you must be suffering from a severe case of stupid. That quote was directly taken from something the North Vietnamese head honcho actually said.

Face it, you've killed your last brain cell doing something stupid.

War seems to be a motivation for producing and testing technology. It's hard to imagine that something so horrible is responsible for technological break-throughs. In this case, could you call war a good thing? No! because, human lives are priceless. But how many ppl have died in wars since the begginning of time? Let me just tell you this..it is awefully hard to win a war when you have the media staring over your shoulder. Vietnam was the first living room war. To much media involvement. You need to let the men be men and go to war and do what must be done to win. I'm not saying that there isnt any footage from the world wars. But I mean ppl used to watch this stuff on tv during vietnam so much they probably felt like they were a part of it. But it's much different when your actually there. Just saying.

"Cerberus is a homo" - Ho Chi Minh

bought time that Ho Chi Minh came out of the closet.

"In this case, could you call war a good thing? No! because, human lives are priceless.:

welcome to a sixty year old philosophy, heh

"To much media involvement. You need to let the men be men and go to war and do what must be done to win"

Oh, Oh, PP has gotten even stupider. Watch out folks, soon his postings will be contagious and you'll become stupider for reading them.

So, was that one of your favorites on the playground at recess, PP?

I cannot believe I am going to do this... but a word in the defense of the Johnson Administration (the sound at the end of this post is me punching myself)....

No one really cared about Vietnam. How little yellow people in a remote and resource-poor part of the world live is easy to overlook. HOWEVER, the Soviets were pulling out all the stops to push communism there, as a foothold to spread across south-east asia. Yes, the Soviets clearly believed in the domino theory and so the west was justified in trying to shut it down.

But here is the problem -- if we committed completely to VICTORY in Vietnam which included an invasion of the north, then we were concerned with what the Soviet reaction would be - in EUROPE. There was real concern for sparking a ground war in Europe -- the balance of forces there was very tight.... So all commitments to Vietnam had to first consider the defense of Western Europe. If we (USA) committed too much force to Vietnam then a surge of Chinese troops could tie them (and a significant portion of the US reserves and naval / air forces supporting them) into asia leaving Europe open for a full-scale Soviet invasion without the threat of massive US forces arriving.

So maintaining the fiction of the Geneva accords and the line between the states was a diplomatic way to keeping Soviet from escalating and keeping most of the US military focused on the main effort -- that is to defend Europe.

*gack*

That said, Johnston still did a miserable job of managing the war.

You didnt sence me sarcasm did you?



Well lets see there was ww1, ww2, Vietnam can we blame Korea on them too?

Oh wait ww1 and 2 was also to be blamed on the Brits too.

Damn Euros cant fight for fluff I guess.

That's not really a fair description. Both the Soviets and the US (/"the West", seeing as it was the French who were fighting there first) were vying for influence in the region, the US was propping up the Diem regime as well as other governments in the region.

On balance though I'd say the political situation in Vietnam and the internal divisions of power within Vietnam (ie military strength of South vs North) very strongly favoured the North. The US invasion and foreign aid to the communists distorted that greatly but in the end it was almost impossible for the US to win the war with the kind of popular support that the communists enjoyed within the country.


Once again, false because it ignores the fact that the Sino-Soviet split. Chinese forces were not committed to tying the US down anywhere, they were funnily enough preparing for a war against the Soviet Union which never materialized (though some clashes occured). I suppose this could have been true for the early parts of the war (pre-1965) but even then the idea of a war escalating to Europe seems a bit extreme.

um.. pp.. "how little yellow people"


? racist towards the mongoloids everywhere, why aren't you up in arms?

are you still trying to defend using racist language in another thread?

All I know is that Battlefield Vietnam had awesome soundtrack.

Hunting in the jungle with a machete = fun

no, i'm calling you out on your selective outrage over seemingly racial terminology.

either offending mongoloids is an affront to you or it isn't, pick one; you can't have it both ways.

your mom is a mongoloid

nope, caucasoid. same as me.

but nice name calling. you can't handle a difference of opinion, or something?

"why dont you take me seriously just because i used and defended using racist language????? *cry*"

hmm, the Vietnam War should be a good example of why you shouldn't pick up the little yellow jaundiced countries by the ankle and try to smack the land out of them. dang those humanitarians.

to this day, pp, you have failed to raise a single valid point.

or, more to the point, even contest any point i made.

if it weren't for my insistence to argue incessant political correctness, we wouldn't be having this dicussion to begin with.

i bring valid points, you cry racism. i bring valid points, you ignore them. i teach you the definition of demonym, and you ignore it.

you show *everybody* on this forum your ignorance, your lack of education or ability to learn when you meet constructive ideology with your own, seemingly unending, intolerance.

stop being so intolerant to free thought, you fascist.

PP is only just potty trained Braden. Can't you tell by the insults he likes to spout?

Lighten up, dude. You know that PP makes retarted people look like Geniuses so don't argue with him, just accept that he'll never understand anything in time enough for you to manage any kind of intellectual connection at all.

i understand that to be you calling me a retard who looks like a genius ;)

i'm only joking; you, me, dibs and watertowers are the only sane people here, at least the ones of us seemingly willing to take a stance against ostensibly anti white racism, or maybe just anti-west racism?

and, i mean, as pp pointed out, we get to call anything we damn well desire racism, and if you disagree, well, you're a racist. you don't believe in my jesus or my god, pp? you're a racist, you racist.

why you putting me in the same sentence as sane people? i don't like them. they be crazy, and they might be contagious.

lol@how bitterly Braden is trying to defend his use of an ethnic slur

dibs don't worry I don't lump you together with cerb, braden and this watertowers guy, you're the lovable forum drunk whereas those three are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_white_male

not sure about the loveable part. so, we're talking about the Vietnam War and racism here, and they're talking about the Bionic Man and Woman on the radio. think they were both white. so i wonder why only the white people get bionics. maybe they just got confused when people started using ebonics on them. well they were both blonde. i should probably wander off now.

no matter how hard you may try, dibs, every once in a while you do make sense ;)

hi pp, that is racist of you, you fluffing racist.

(because you referenced the colour of my skin, in case you're confused)

"I wish we could go back to the good ol days when you could call a fluff a fluff and a jap a jap without some liberal getting all uppity about it" - braden

i do not believe i have used that word a single time, in any of our disagreeableness, pp.

but we did determine negroid isn't at all offensive, and quite frankly, i far prefer that.

you're a racist, for having used those words/ good job on completely undermining any point or moral highground you may have held.

"How the hell can chink be offensive? I mean the country's called China for fluff's sake, they're almost the same word" - braden

"I don't know what you're getting so mad about. I didn't insult black people when I said "that fluff Idi Amin shouldn't have expelled the Asians from Uganda" I was insulting Idi Amin. God damn liberals are defending Idi Amin now" - braden

"Well if I'm not allowed to use racial slurs, you're not allowed to make any mention of race because I'm offended when someone calls me white" - braden

"hi my name is pontius and i'm unable to carry on a debate because i lack intellect" Pontius Pirate

no, they are offended when i *am* white.

"People are not realizing that the biggest victims of racism in today's United States are white people." - braden

edit: oh wait, I could just have posted this

i'm canadian, but way to have any idea of what you speak.

and yes, you're blind, a fool or even less educated than i initially thought if you believe racism isn't directed towards white people. you are, my friend, not very smart.

(as if the whole demonym fiasco hadn't proven it, heh)