- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
No, we didn't drop more bombs on Northern targets than we did on Germany and if you drop enough bombs, resolve will disolve, as proven during WW2.
The quickest way to make them stop wanting to be guerilla is destroy their will to fight, which is what we almost did, even with the half assed tactics we used during the war.
Umm... how was resolve broken? I mean, look at England. It just made them fight harder.
How did we destroy it? We were being fought until we left.
I'll match you source for source. I'm not the sort that shoots the messanger on a subject like this, like some people. You game? Or, are you just buying into the real revisionist history that you've been erroneously taught your whole life?
If I had any hope of getting a real debate out of this I would, and if it was on ANY other topic I might entertain it anyway even without that hope for the sake of a good argument, but I simply cannot wrap my mind around how you can take that stance.
Really, just the thought that someone could sincerely hold that postition, I don't even know where to begin!
Have you seen the footage of the US evacuation?
The differances between the two are so astronomical as to defy easy exemplification.No, we didn't drop more bombs on Northern targets than we did on Germany and if you drop enough bombs, resolve will disolve, as proven during WW2.
Not scared, try bored...If you're scared, say your scared. If it's so obvious that you're right, then it should be a cake walk for you.
The point is why are people who have association with the Americans deadly afraid of the rape and slaughter approaching them if America won?I sure have. Have you? Did you notice that those were civilian employees in the US embassy? Do you realize American combat forces had been re-deployed from Vietnam for two years prior to that footage being shot? Those weren't American combat forces being evaced in 1975. You are aware of that, right?
If you're scared, say your scared. If it's so obvious that you're right, then it should be a cake walk for you.
I sure have. Have you? Did you notice that those were civilian employees in the US embassy? Do you realize American combat forces had been re-deployed from Vietnam for two years prior to that footage being shot? Those weren't American combat forces being evaced in 1975. You are aware of that, right?
I was going to edit this in but you might be replying now so that wouldn't be fair, I'd like to respond to this:
The differances between the two are so astronomical as to defy easy exemplification.
Lets start with the basics: The Germans like in open feilds and cities in brick, concrete or timber constructed homes with lots of goods and items that are not easlily moved.
The Viet Cong lived in grass huts in jungles and all their worldly possessions could be strapped to their backs and moved in a matter of minutes...
So do you see how this analogy breaks down fundamentally or should I go on?
Bombs don't work on people in thick jungles with grass houses like they do on Europeans.
The cultural and economic differences are usually the hardest things for people with preconceived notions to comprehend.
Who said anything about bombing grass huts in the countryside. Go back and see that I pointed to built up areas such as Hanoi and Haiphong. You want to try and break down the analogy and don't even know what I'm talking about. Wanna try again?
You are more right than the others, but also flawed in your thinking. Saying outright that Vietnam was a victory will insinuate that you believe our ultimate objective was achieved... when it wasn't. But the war was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost at home. It was a political and moral defeat, not a military one... The American GI in Vietnam demonstrated some of the greatest feats of bravery and ingenuity in the history of Western warfare, defeating thousands of entrenched NVA troops in Hue. The marines inflicted thousands of casualities while sustaining some 150. That is one for the history books.
The main reason we lost the War was that Sect.McNamara wouldn't allow the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong in 1965 if Rolling Thunder was allowed to attack these two Cities then the out come of the war would have been far different.
You are more right than the others, but also flawed in your thinking. Saying outright that Vietnam was a victory will insinuate that you believe our ultimate objective was achieved... when it wasn't. But the war was not lost on the battlefield, it was lost at home.
As for the American military leadership, they were incompetent. Many blame politicians like McNamara... but Westy and the rest of MACV were also unshamingly not fit for the job. Westy was by no means a terrible general and to be scapegoated, and some could make the argument he was forced to fight the war like he did, but a good general would've found more effective methods of reaching the ultimate objective... not just stacking up body counts and giving the soldiers and the homefront absolutely not physical signs of victory.
As for the American military itself... evolved. It learned the techniques and methods of counter-insurgency, developed the proper tactics to defeat a guerilla enemy, and demonstrated unbelievably awesome firepower. They fought with hands tied behind their back... thats the truth.
The simple fact is the majority of the North's fighting forces were in those grass huts, and if you can't get to them you can't break their back,[or I should get their families], any comparisons between those wars are spurrious at best.
That's a negative. It was the fighters in those grass huts that were rendered combat in-effective in 1968. The VC ceased to exist as a combat force after the Tet Offensive and the the Tet Offensive was a massive failure for the Communists.
If you want to talk about all the failures of the communists we could have a nice fireside chat all day long, I already said they lost like 90+% of the battles...
But who unified Viet Nam?
The winners...
BUT, the United States didn't lose the war. Why is it do hard for you to get a grip on that?
That's what I meant by a more decisive victory and not politicizing the war. Wars are fought and won the the battlefield, not the political arena.
American military leadership wasn't incompetent. It was the civilian leadership that micromanaged the war that was incompetent
We defeated the enemy on the battlefield. While our political goal was botched, because of the violation of a leagal and binding treaty and no one bothered to enforce that treaty, as promised; we did achieve our objective on the battlefield and that was to force the enemy into submission. It went wrong when we didn't force them into submission, enough. This is what happens when wars are fought on the political front instead of the battle front.
The South Vietnamese lost to The North, because we didn't give them the support we promised. US forces were never defeated by the Communists in Southeast Asia.
BUT, the United States didn't lose the war. Why is it do hard for you to get a grip on that?
Our ultimate objective, a free and democratic South Vietnam was ultimately lost. Military victory is irrelevent if political victory doesn't follow.
Since the Vietnam war's ultimate objective was to thwart expansionist, agressive Communist policy... we did achieve some victory.
Doesn't taking over south Vietnam count as expanding and aggressive?
The Chinese warred Vietnam instead of continuing to assist them. Vietnam overthrew the Communist government in Camobodia. There was a Sino-Soviet split. There was no longer the huge second world support of Communist forces in third world countries(For a while).There were no more dominoes.... I am not saying we achieved ultimate victory, but victory is not always so black and white. We did win a partial victory.
Nixon bomed Hanoi and it didn't seem to win us the war. It was much more than that anyway... we needed to assault enemy sanctuaries across the border in force. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia... even North Vietnam if possible. Bombing would need to be directed at the North Vietnamese capital but also at North Vietnamese harbors... All this with a troop surge, a concerted anti-Viet Cong effort, and a campaign to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people. It would've taken a lot for total victory, but it was possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?