• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Viet-Nam

What good would that have done? We basically bombed them to rubble anyways.

I suspect like most right wingers at the time and even today, he would have invaded the North and even used nukes... and we would most likely not be here discussing this today as a result. I mean most right wingers in the US still cant accept that the US lost the Vietnam war.. so what ya expect.
 
What good would that have done? We basically bombed them to rubble anyways.

Actually, we didn't. Hanoi was off limits to bombing strikes for most of the war. Reason being, we were trying not to piss anyone off.
 
I suspect like most right wingers at the time and even today, he would have invaded the North and even used nukes... and we would most likely not be here discussing this today as a result. I mean most right wingers in the US still cant accept that the US lost the Vietnam war.. so what ya expect.

The United States military wasn't defeated in Vietnam. But, you're from Europe and I know that actualy historical information is a rarity to you folks.
 
I never understand why everyone is so hung up on the "defeated/not-defeated BS. Vietnam is a perfect example of where military force was ultimately pointless. The political goals we wanted to accomplish simply were not going to be obtained through use of force. South Vietnam couldn't stand on its own, and no matter how many people we killed, that wasn't likely to change.
 
The United States military wasn't defeated in Vietnam. But, you're from Europe and I know that actualy historical information is a rarity to you folks.

that we declared victory and ran does not mean we won

consider it practice for afghanistan
 
that we declared victory and ran does not mean we won

consider it practice for afghanistan

We didn't declare victory, then run. We forced the North Vietnamese into submission, thereby signing a treaty at the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.
 
The United States military wasn't defeated in Vietnam. But, you're from Europe and I know that actualy historical information is a rarity to you folks.

Militarily means nothing. You can win a thousand battles and still loose the war. Politically you failed to achieve your ends.
 
We didn't declare victory, then run. We forced the North Vietnamese into submission, thereby signing a treaty at the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.

we forced them into such submission that they overran saigon/ho chi minh city and established a communist government in our wake

you can have that "victory"
 
It honestly depends by 'who' we all mean. Do we mean the 60's anti-war radicals? Well, they undoubtedly 'lost.' Do we mean the North Vietnamese, who obviously won or does one mean communism in general? More specifically: did anti-communism lose abroad? Just as imporantly, did hawkish anti-communism win at home?

Interestingly enough, it seems anti-communism lost itself in the Vietnamese Jungles, to then find itself in the Jungles of American Cities; an anachronism which undoubtedly helps explain the schizophrenia America still has on the situation. In essence, the hawks lost the battle abroad yet managed to convert that into victories state-side. While the doves were eventually vilified (in Vietnam) but somehow couldn't convert that into long term political victories. This trend also continues on the flip side of foreign policy: hawks were eventually proven correct about the Domino Theory, yet intervention never reached Vietnam levels again.

I guess my views could use explanation, so here's a spin...

We all know how dramatic Kent State and Chicago's DemConvention was - today we see it as police brutality. Yet polls conducted after the events show a large amount of America actually supported the gents. This whole concept of a 'Silent Majority' (*nods* Nixon) was literally born right there as a backlash against the perceived inconsistencies with LBJ’s Great Society’s excesses. The “Law and Order,” alongside such issues as the Vietnam war, concept steadily converted itself into a winning strategy for the GOP. Combining Goldwater fireflies, Southern State's Rightists (like Strom Thurmond, the [in]famous civil rights filibuster) with Nixon's 'Silent Majority' of middle-class America. That coalition just proved to be a smashing success - too much for a ruminating collection of Cultural Elites and Black Power Radicals. Yet there was still a lot of hope, in both the Establishment and in certain parts of America that they could tap this well of political outrage against Vietnam. Certainly, there was a lot of coverage of student-organized protests. Yet regardess, we have in a short amount of time hawkish Conservatives taking the GOP in ’64, Nixon winning in '68 (though defeating HHH wasn't a big deal in the scheme of things other to expose how badly the Democratic Party had split), the Democrat Party fending off a quintessential hawk/New Left bid by George McGovern the same year (though to be fair he wouldn't have existed as the radical's main choice had it been before the assassination of JFK by a rabid communist and Robert by a Palestinian Nationalist) in lieu of LBJ's VP: HHH. That, of course, opens up for ’72. The Big Year of Big Years. The year which breaks in the new convention rules (which switched around the delegates at large, viz; party big wigs so that they had a considerable lack of influence) that were written, no less, by a board with McGovern at the helm. And to make a long story short: that was the year McGovern and 'his boys' were supposed to show what dove idealism was all about. They, of course, lose miserably. Which sort of heralds in the 'Conservative U-Turn' for the next.... Well, until politics of meaning and beyond.

To wrap it all up, for losing, anti-communist hawks take the stage in some form or another for the next 40+ years.

As for the foreign affairs: SV falls in '75, US involvement ended in '73 and what does that mean? Well, looking back, the Domino Theory suffered one serious flaw: it only applied itself to South-East Asia. Which is silly. Looking at the world for the first 10 years before, and the 10 years after; one can't help but notice communist activity picked up distinctly between '73-83' compared to '63-'73. Nicaraguan Revolution, and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, with the Yom Kippur War, with other communist gains in Laos, Angola, Cambodia and Ethiopia indicate that the Domino Theory was essentially spot-on. Most significantly of that revolutionary activity was the landing of Cuban troops in Angola to continue that country's war against South West Africa (Namiba, which at the time was occupied by the Boer's of South Africa, courtesy of a British, later UN Mandate, which let them sink their claws in). That, I’m supposing, or the backlash against real (and imagined) communist threats by Latin American in Operation Condor. That or the Gulf of Sidra incident, maybe even the invasion of Grenada if one looks at it from a US-centered view.


Now looking at Communist activity before '73?... Landing troops in the Dominican Republic comes close but to be fair no true communist ties were ever found before, during or after the invasion. Certainly, we have Prague Spring but other than that not a whole lot outside of Vietnam. Which was certainly enough by itself from ‘69 or ‘70 onwards yet truly - much of the doom and gloomer hawk’s were right when they said the war did matter on a larger, geopolitical scale.

Well it's certainly interesting and I could prattle on about it forever but for now I think I gave my views a good run…
 
Last edited:
The United States military wasn't defeated in Vietnam. But, you're from Europe and I know that actualy historical information is a rarity to you folks.

Who said the United States Military? I said the United States. Sure you won every battle but you failed to accomplish the goal of the whole war and hence you lost it.
 
Maybe but it does not change the fact that the Philippines was a US colony. You can put in place legislative and what not, it does not change the fact that ultimately it was the US that called any and all shots on the Island up the day it gained full independence, 50 years after the fact. And lets not forget one of the arguments for the US-Spanish war was to "free" areas from Spanish colonial rule. Of those areas, Cuba was given independence pretty fast, the Philippines had to wait over 50 years and Peuto Rico still is a colony.

Like it or not the western powers all had and still have colonial areas under their administration long after 1945... all countries in the West attempted to keep old colonies as much as possible, and some still do have those colonies. Sure we call them outposts, UN administrative areas, self rule areas commonwealths and what not, but the fact is they are not independent and hence a colony.

You should learn a bit more about how the US Commonwealths work, and the history behind them.

The Philippines were in a much more precarious position then Cuba was. Relatively isolated, it was much larger then Cuba, and made up of seperate islands that still held onto tribal identities. If they had been given independence as fast as Cuba, it would quickly have been gobbled up by Germany, Japan, England, or some other nation.

In 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Comission. They concluded that while the Philippines desired it's independence, it was not yet ready for it. It recommended the establishment of the first Legislature, autonimous provincial and local government, and the foundation of the Philippine education system.

In 1900, the Second Philippine Comission (headed by William Taft) led to the establishment of the full legislature, a legal system and the establishment of the Supreme Court, and a limited Executive branch. At this time, Kaiser Wilhelm started to make demands that the former Spanish colonies be turned over to Germany. President McKinley rejected those demands.

To military historians, this is an interesting period in history. Germany came very close to declairing war with the United States over this issue. The Kaiser ordered his war staff to prepare plans for a war with the US if they did not turn over the former Spanish colonies. While nothing ever became of it, the plans were completed and war games were held to test their viability. And while a few books have been written about it (1901 by Robert Conroy being one), Operational Plan Three was never enacted.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Plan_Three]Operational Plan Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Meanwhile, independence for the Philippines continued. The Philippine Organic Act in 1902, and the Jones Act in 1916 gave ever increasing power to the Philippine people, and moved the US to more of an advisory role. This finally led to the Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act) of 1934, which established the 10 year timeline for total independence.

By 1934, the Governor-General office was abolished, and the High Comissioner was established. This was largely a ceremonial position, and was a precursor for the eventual Ambassadorship.

The other position formed was Field Marshal of the Philippines (officially the Office of the Military Advisor to the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines). This position was given to the President of the Philippines to be filled (President Quezon), and he chose retired Major General Douglas McArthur to fill it. General McArthur held the post for 4 years, until the outbreak of war with Japan.

The position of Field Marshal was advisory. General McArthur's job was to organize and oversee the training of the Philippine Armed Forces. This was a job he took very seriously.

By 1934, the Philippines was an American Comonwealth. This is not a colony, but a formal recognition that a state is tied to the US voluntarily. It is currently the same position as Puerto Ricoand the Northern Marianna Islands. This is similar to the position of unincorporated territories, like Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands.

The differences between Commonwealth (or incorporated territories) and unincorporated is purely internal, and decided by the territories. They can chose to incorporate and become a Commonwealth, retain their current status, or become independent. They are not considered to be US Citizens under the Constitution, but have been given US Citizenship by Congressional Decree. They also have no representation in Congress.

Commonwealth citizens are considered to be American citizens by birth by the Constitution. They have a non-voting member of Congress, and can choose to either remain a Commonwealth, become independent, or become a state.

And this year, the final "50 State Quarters" are released. However, this actually brings the total up to 56, not 50. 2008 saw the last State quarters. This year, the quarters released were District Of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands, and Northern Marianna Islands.

These are most assuredly not "colonies". A colony has no self-government, and exist at the whim of their parent country. The choice of independence is not in their own hands, and they are not citizens of their parent country. Our territories and commonwealths have free choice as to what they want to do with their futures.

I have served and still serve with a great many people from these regions. My former neighbor was in the Navy, who enlisted from the Philippines under a former program that allowed limited Philippine enlistment into the US Navy. And over the years I have served with a great many from Puerto Rico. 2 of them I work with now. And one girl I am currently serving with is from the Northern Marianna Islands. She even took her 2 week R&R leave there (which was an adventure she said, having to go through Kuwait, Afganistan, and Australia before getting home).
 
You should learn a bit more about how the US Commonwealths work, and the history behind them.

The Philippines were in a much more precarious position then Cuba was. Relatively isolated, it was much larger then Cuba, and made up of seperate islands that still held onto tribal identities. If they had been given independence as fast as Cuba, it would quickly have been gobbled up by Germany, Japan, England, or some other nation.

In 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Comission. They concluded that while the Philippines desired it's independence, it was not yet ready for it. It recommended the establishment of the first Legislature, autonimous provincial and local government, and the foundation of the Philippine education system.

In 1900, the Second Philippine Comission (headed by William Taft) led to the establishment of the full legislature, a legal system and the establishment of the Supreme Court, and a limited Executive branch. At this time, Kaiser Wilhelm started to make demands that the former Spanish colonies be turned over to Germany. President McKinley rejected those demands.

To military historians, this is an interesting period in history. Germany came very close to declairing war with the United States over this issue. The Kaiser ordered his war staff to prepare plans for a war with the US if they did not turn over the former Spanish colonies. While nothing ever became of it, the plans were completed and war games were held to test their viability. And while a few books have been written about it (1901 by Robert Conroy being one), Operational Plan Three was never enacted.

Operational Plan Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meanwhile, independence for the Philippines continued. The Philippine Organic Act in 1902, and the Jones Act in 1916 gave ever increasing power to the Philippine people, and moved the US to more of an advisory role. This finally led to the Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act) of 1934, which established the 10 year timeline for total independence.

By 1934, the Governor-General office was abolished, and the High Comissioner was established. This was largely a ceremonial position, and was a precursor for the eventual Ambassadorship.

The other position formed was Field Marshal of the Philippines (officially the Office of the Military Advisor to the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines). This position was given to the President of the Philippines to be filled (President Quezon), and he chose retired Major General Douglas McArthur to fill it. General McArthur held the post for 4 years, until the outbreak of war with Japan.

The position of Field Marshal was advisory. General McArthur's job was to organize and oversee the training of the Philippine Armed Forces. This was a job he took very seriously.

By 1934, the Philippines was an American Comonwealth. This is not a colony, but a formal recognition that a state is tied to the US voluntarily. It is currently the same position as Puerto Ricoand the Northern Marianna Islands. This is similar to the position of unincorporated territories, like Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands.

The differences between Commonwealth (or incorporated territories) and unincorporated is purely internal, and decided by the territories. They can chose to incorporate and become a Commonwealth, retain their current status, or become independent. They are not considered to be US Citizens under the Constitution, but have been given US Citizenship by Congressional Decree. They also have no representation in Congress.

Commonwealth citizens are considered to be American citizens by birth by the Constitution. They have a non-voting member of Congress, and can choose to either remain a Commonwealth, become independent, or become a state.

And this year, the final "50 State Quarters" are released. However, this actually brings the total up to 56, not 50. 2008 saw the last State quarters. This year, the quarters released were District Of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands, and Northern Marianna Islands.

These are most assuredly not "colonies". A colony has no self-government, and exist at the whim of their parent country. The choice of independence is not in their own hands, and they are not citizens of their parent country. Our territories and commonwealths have free choice as to what they want to do with their futures.

I have served and still serve with a great many people from these regions. My former neighbor was in the Navy, who enlisted from the Philippines under a former program that allowed limited Philippine enlistment into the US Navy. And over the years I have served with a great many from Puerto Rico. 2 of them I work with now. And one girl I am currently serving with is from the Northern Marianna Islands. She even took her 2 week R&R leave there (which was an adventure she said, having to go through Kuwait, Afganistan, and Australia before getting home).

More excuses for having a colony. This exact same excuse was used by every colonial power out there.. they were too dumb to rule themselves, too fragmented, too black, not white enough.. bla bla bla.

Point is, regardless if you call it a commenwealth or something else, the Islands in question were/are not part of the US (the SC has made that clear) and they were/are not fully independent and in the end it is the US congress that has final say on any and all issues if the US congress chooses so (also something the SC has made very clear).. hence Puerto Rico is a colony, and the Philippines was one too for 50 years.
 
More excuses for having a colony. This exact same excuse was used by every colonial power out there.. they were too dumb to rule themselves, too fragmented, too black, not white enough.. bla bla bla.

Point is, regardless if you call it a commenwealth or something else, the Islands in question were/are not part of the US (the SC has made that clear) and they were/are not fully independent and in the end it is the US congress that has final say on any and all issues if the US congress chooses so (also something the SC has made very clear).. hence Puerto Rico is a colony, and the Philippines was one too for 50 years.

Tell me one nation that planned from the aquisition to work a "colony" towards independence? Did England do that for the US or India? Did France do that for Egypt or Vietnam? Did Spain do that for Mexico?

When the US got control of Cuba in 1898, they also had a comission set up to help it work towards independence. In 1901, a plan was instituted to work towards independence within 20 years.

However, shortly after taking office, President Roosevelt set aside that agreement. Instead, Cuba was granted it's independence in 1902.

So much for wanting to hold onto it's "colony".

And no, it is not up to the US what any of it's territories do. Just like any former territory (Idaho, Oregon, Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii, etc), it is their choice if they continue as they are, or try for statehood.

There are a lot of advantages to being a commonwealth. The territory does not have to pay taxes (only Social Security, no federal payroll tax), they have a sound currency, they do not have to pay for national defense, they do not have the expense of embassies (or having to maintain them for other nations on their soil). They are self-governing, just like any state. And they do not have to worry about immigration laws or policies, since everybody is a US citizen by birth.

OK, let me take the "Devil's Advocate" position for a moment. What would have happened if the US had cut loose the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico in 1901?

Well, I can tell you that. Germany wanted Cuba, badly. The Kaiser wanted a naval base and coaling point in the Carribean, and had missed it's chance at having a world empire. They tried to buy Cuba and the Philippines from Spain, then later from the US.

If we had granted them independence, within 5 years both of them would have been German colonies. With no intention of ever being let go. With a base on Cuba, Germany would not have been interested in Puerto Rico. But they probably would have taken it over, and tried to negotiate a trade with another European nation for a colony they could have used. More then likely in the Middle East, or Indian Ocean.

The Philippines would have probably been taken over by Japan during WWI. People tend to forget, Japan was an Allied Power in that war. They would have demanded it as war reperations and more then likely gotten it. In that situation, the Philippines would probably still be a prefecture of Japan. Much like the Ryuku Islands.

One of the main things about being independent is the requirement to have sufficient assets to defend yourself. Independence in 1901 would have destroyed all of these territories.

And I just asked my friend Angel if he considers himself to be a "Colonial". When I explained to him what I meant, he said he is not sure if he should laugh at the thought, or be offended. He is an American, and proud to be so. And that if Puerto Rico ever decided Independence over Statehood, he would move to the Mainland and never return.

And in the latest public opinion polls in Puerto Rico, 77% favor Statehood, vs. 12% for independence.

http://www.prstatehood.com/news/poll_071408.pdf

That does not sound much like a colony to me. How many "colonies" since being offered independence have willingly chosen to remain with their "controlling power"?
 
Tell me one nation that planned from the aquisition to work a "colony" towards independence? Did England do that for the US or India? Did France do that for Egypt or Vietnam? Did Spain do that for Mexico?

When the US got control of Cuba in 1898, they also had a comission set up to help it work towards independence. In 1901, a plan was instituted to work towards independence within 20 years.

However, shortly after taking office, President Roosevelt set aside that agreement. Instead, Cuba was granted it's independence in 1902.

So much for wanting to hold onto it's "colony".

And no, it is not up to the US what any of it's territories do. Just like any former territory (Idaho, Oregon, Dakota, Alaska, Hawaii, etc), it is their choice if they continue as they are, or try for statehood.

There are a lot of advantages to being a commonwealth. The territory does not have to pay taxes (only Social Security, no federal payroll tax), they have a sound currency, they do not have to pay for national defense, they do not have the expense of embassies (or having to maintain them for other nations on their soil). They are self-governing, just like any state. And they do not have to worry about immigration laws or policies, since everybody is a US citizen by birth.

OK, let me take the "Devil's Advocate" position for a moment. What would have happened if the US had cut loose the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico in 1901?

Well, I can tell you that. Germany wanted Cuba, badly. The Kaiser wanted a naval base and coaling point in the Carribean, and had missed it's chance at having a world empire. They tried to buy Cuba and the Philippines from Spain, then later from the US.

If we had granted them independence, within 5 years both of them would have been German colonies. With no intention of ever being let go. With a base on Cuba, Germany would not have been interested in Puerto Rico. But they probably would have taken it over, and tried to negotiate a trade with another European nation for a colony they could have used. More then likely in the Middle East, or Indian Ocean.

The Philippines would have probably been taken over by Japan during WWI. People tend to forget, Japan was an Allied Power in that war. They would have demanded it as war reperations and more then likely gotten it. In that situation, the Philippines would probably still be a prefecture of Japan. Much like the Ryuku Islands.

One of the main things about being independent is the requirement to have sufficient assets to defend yourself. Independence in 1901 would have destroyed all of these territories.

And I just asked my friend Angel if he considers himself to be a "Colonial". When I explained to him what I meant, he said he is not sure if he should laugh at the thought, or be offended. He is an American, and proud to be so. And that if Puerto Rico ever decided Independence over Statehood, he would move to the Mainland and never return.

And in the latest public opinion polls in Puerto Rico, 77% favor Statehood, vs. 12% for independence.

http://www.prstatehood.com/news/poll_071408.pdf

That does not sound much like a colony to me. How many "colonies" since being offered independence have willingly chosen to remain with their "controlling power"?

Does not change the fact that the US did NOT give the Philippines independence for 50 years and it still has NOT given Puerto Rico independence despite promising so at the end of the Spanish-American war. You can use every excuse in the book, but you ruled and are ruling over an area that is not part of the USA, and hence must be a colony.

It also does not matter one bit that the US has offered the Puerto Ricans independence more than once and they refused. According to US law, and to the US SC, Puerto Rico is not part of the USA, and the ultimate power over the island lies with the US Congress.. hence you have exactly the same powers over Puerto Rico as Spain had over the Island when it was a Spanish colony. That you have seen fit to give the illusion of self-rule over the area again does not change the facts. The same goes for the Philippines. Yes you put in place "democratic" institutions quite quickly but again the ultimate power was with the US on every single issue. The Philippines President of the time was nothing but a puppet.
 
Then why aren't I sitting in the People's Republic of Australia?

Because our actions over the past 70 years have halted the expansion of Communism.


Who said the United States Military? I said the United States. Sure you won every battle but you failed to accomplish the goal of the whole war and hence you lost it.


we forced them into such submission that they overran saigon/ho chi minh city and established a communist government in our wake

you can have that "victory"


Militarily means nothing. You can win a thousand battles and still loose the war. Politically you failed to achieve your ends.


You all said we lost the war. We didn't lose the war. We failed to respond to the violation of the treaty agreement; we failed to hold our end of an agreement to support South Vietnam, but we didn't lose the war.

By that logic, the Mujahadeen lost the war in Afghanistan during the 80's.

In the words of Charlie Wilson, "...we ****ed up the end game", which is what we always do.
 
It also does not matter one bit that the US has offered the Puerto Ricans independence more than once and they refused. According to US law, and to the US SC, Puerto Rico is not part of the USA, and the ultimate power over the island lies with the US Congress..

Puerto Rico is part of the United States. The position of a Territory is clearly stated in Article IV, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

According to law, Puerto Rico (and every other territory) is part of the United States. Everybody living there is a US citizen by birth.

And like any state, the ultimate power comes from the Constitution of the United States. Not from Congress. And if they become a state (which is becomming more and more likely), they will have the same rights and responsibilities as every other state in the Union. The part about making "Rules and Regulations" is no different then the power Congress has over every other state in the Union. My dad was living in Alaska when it went from Territory to State. Do you consider that as having been a colony also?

And they will gain more responsibilities, like having to pay Federal Income Tax. But they are US Citizens. All males have to register for the Draft. During times of war, they have been drafted. They can travel to and from the US freely, with no quota on immigration nor requirement for passport or visa. If they move to the mainland, they can vote once they change their state of residency.

In reality, their status is almost exactly the same as those that live in the District of Columbia. And I would like to hear you claim that they are not part of the United States.

And when you look at it, they have even more freedom and rights then those in DC have. Puerto Rico can become a state, and get full representation in Congress, and members of the Electoral College. That will never happen to DC.
 
Last edited:
Because our actions over the past 70 years have halted the expansion of Communism.
Then the domino theory was bull****.


By that logic, the Mujahadeen lost the war in Afghanistan during the 80's
Except they were in the exact opposite situation having actually secured their political goals. You failed, suck it up and move on.
 
Then the domino theory was bull****.


Except they were in the exact opposite situation having actually secured their political goals. You failed, suck it up and move on.

Thank you for taking the time to even respond to that post. :lol:


Originally Posted by apdst
We didn't declare victory, then run. We forced the North Vietnamese into submission, thereby signing a treaty at the Paris Peace Accords in 1973.

I am not sure that we really "forced" them to do anything, it was in their interest to end the war, and they chose signing the Peace Accords as that method.


Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."

Lessons of Vietnam by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, ca. May 12, 1975

Ho Chi Min is quoted as saying, “You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours…But even at these odds you will lose and I will win”


Originally Posted by apdst
The United States military wasn't defeated in Vietnam. But, you're from Europe and I know that actualy historical information is a rarity to you folks.

The same could then be said about Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, right? When does a military lose then?
 
The United States military wasn't defeated in Vietnam. But, you're from Europe and I know that actualy historical information is a rarity to you folks.

What relevance is it if our military wasn't defeated? Our political goal, of an independent democratic South Vietnam, was not met. If the political goal isn't met, the military action is irrelevant. Remember, War is nothing but an extension of Politics.
 
Actually, we didn't. Hanoi was off limits to bombing strikes for most of the war. Reason being, we were trying not to piss anyone off.

Show me once that carpet bombing with conventional munitions has ever worked.
 
Show me once that carpet bombing with conventional munitions has ever worked.

Berlin
Hamburg
Dresden
Tokyo
Etc
Etc
Etc

We carpet bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan and took out their infrastructure...

...if we were allowed unrestricted access to Hanoi?
 
What relevance is it if our military wasn't defeated? Our political goal, of an independent democratic South Vietnam, was not met. If the political goal isn't met, the military action is irrelevant. Remember, War is nothing but an extension of Politics.

... agreed ...
 
Berlin
Hamburg
Dresden
Tokyo
Etc
Etc
Etc

We carpet bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan and took out their infrastructure...

...if we were allowed unrestricted access to Hanoi?

We defeated Germany by marching into its borders and defeating its army. We beat Japan by using nuclear bombs. Tactical bombing like supply lines and factories is great, but strategic bombing is a loser.
 
Because our actions over the past 70 years have halted the expansion of Communism.

It did? Sure fooled me.. I guess Laos and Cambodia and South Vietnam never happened

You all said we lost the war. We didn't lose the war. We failed to respond to the violation of the treaty agreement; we failed to hold our end of an agreement to support South Vietnam, but we didn't lose the war.

No you lost the war. The goal was to stop the spread of Communism in Vietnam, you failed, get over it.
By that logic, the Mujahadeen lost the war in Afghanistan during the 80's.

There is logic in what you posted?

But thanks for proving my point about US right wingers and their pathological urge to change historical fact to fit their twisted world view. The very fact that you refuse to accept defeat in Vietnam.... pathetic.
 
Back
Top Bottom