Vietnam

[apdst]

His opinion does matter. You dismiss others' opinions while coming yourself from a "Don't bother me with facts; my mind is made up" attitude.

My opinion is based on fact vice bull****.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Germany signed an armistice. They never surrendered, nor capitulated. They--like the North Vietnamese--simply agreed to stop fighting and withdraw their forces to within their own borders.

Do you know the difference between an armistice and capitulation?

I don't know what your definition of capitulated is, but Germany gave up all territory gained, pledged to never raise an army above a certain level, was barred from raising an air force and agreed to pay reparations to the allied nations for the damage caused by the war even though they were not entirely to blame for the start of the war.

So whether they chose to call it an armistice, capitulation or a surrender, what they did following the signing is more important than what it was called.

You have more of a serious historical revisionist problem than the misguided in this thread that tried to call the Tet Offensive a military defeat.

 

[apdst]

I don't know what your definition of capitulated is, but Germany gave up all territory gained, pledged to never raise an army above a certain level, was barred from raising an air force and agreed to pay reparations to the allied nations for the damage caused by the war even though they were not entirely to blame for the start of the war.

Capitulation and an armistice are two different things and Germany didn't capitulate. Don't try to change the English language, please.

So whether they chose to call it an armistice, capitulation or a surrender, what they did following the signing is more important than what it was called.

Germany didn't surrender. Learn to live with that fact. Stop trying single-handedly re-write modern history.

You have more of a serious historical revisionist problem than the misguided in this thread that tried to call the Tet Offensive a military defeat.

Tet was a military defeat...for the North. That's a fact.

 

[ric27]

Actually I posted very clear statements from others as well as the reality of events that stated without a shred of ambiguity or waffling that the North won the war and our side lost. Your refusal to accept reality is irrelevant to what actually happened or what history records happened. Your opinion on it simply matters not.

Correcting another myth. We DID win in Vietnam. We left in 1972. When we left, the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese Communist insurgency was essentially gone and there was a truce with N. Vietnam. Three years later, in 1975, N. Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam with their army. A conventional army. An invasion conducted in the classical fashion with more tanks than Hitler had when he invaded Russia in 1941. Because we were no longer funding the S. Vietnamese and refused to live up to our promise to provide military aid and support if the N. Vietnamese did cross the border, they were unable to mount an effective defense and the country fell.

The insurgency in S. Vietnam was defeated and destroyed and was not a part of their military defeat in 1975.

 

[Thunder]

...Germany didn't surrender. Learn to live with that fact. Stop trying single-handedly re-write modern history....

sure they did:

 

[StillBallin75]

sure they did:

I absolutely HATE defending apdst, but you're forcing me to do otherwise.

He was talking about World War ONE.

 

[Thunder]

I absolutely HATE defending apdst, but you're forcing me to do otherwise.

He was talking about World War ONE.

yeah, I wasn't sure about that one. Now I have to go research WW1.

 

[hazlnut]

As a vet if this don't tear you up nothing will......Of course we probably have a few members who spat on vietnam vets and called them baby killers Like "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and John "traitor Kerry...........


Thank You For Your Service (A Moment of Truth) - YouTube

Your point and purpose for starting this thread goes right into the crapper when you call John Kerry a traitor.

IMO - no real vet would make a comment like that.

 

[haymarket]

Ignoring the facts sure is convenient. Huh?

It is you who are ignoring the fact which I just provided for you.

You remind me of a football fan who takes solace in the fact that they outscored their opponent in three of our quarters, had more first downs, completed more passes, made more first downs, racked up more rushing yardage and kicked more field goals than their opponent.

Too bad they lost and get a big fat L next to their name.

 

[haymarket]

His opinion does matter. You dismiss others' opinions while coming yourself from a "Don't bother me with facts; my mind is made up" attitude.

Actually he could state his opinion one million times. That does not change the fact that South Vietnam fell ot the North and our enemy the communists took over the nation causing our military and political objectives to fail utterly.

Reality and the historical record render opinion based on blind ideology irrelevant.

 

[haymarket]

Correcting another myth. We DID win in Vietnam. We left in 1972. When we left, the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese Communist insurgency was essentially gone and there was a truce with N. Vietnam. Three years later, in 1975, N. Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam with their army. A conventional army. An invasion conducted in the classical fashion with more tanks than Hitler had when he invaded Russia in 1941. Because we were no longer funding the S. Vietnamese and refused to live up to our promise to provide military aid and support if the N. Vietnamese did cross the border, they were unable to mount an effective defense and the country fell.

The insurgency in S. Vietnam was defeated and destroyed and was not a part of their military defeat in 1975.

So which side took over the country again?

And which side were we supporting for two decades?

And which side did we fight to help them win?

And which side were we trying to stop from taking over the entire nation?

The argument that some are presenting here is badly confusing isolated or even collected military events with the over all result. it reminds me of somebody whose body is riddled with a very virulent cancer. They go through months and months of hellacious treatments which take them from 200 pounds down to 85 and they are a weak and frail skeleton who cannot even conduct daily life on their own. The doctors proclaim that the poisonous treatments have removed all traces of cancer from their body and they have triumphed over it. Then, shortly after, the patient gets a bad cold and dies unable to fight back to what even babies can fight off.

Yup, the doctors won against cancer............ right?

I wonder if any of the VN revisionists have ever heard of the phrase - winning the battle but losing the war? Apparently not.

 

[Catawba]

The entire nation was lost to the enemy we fought against.

That's just failing to win. Big difference between that and being defeated.

 

[haymarket]

That's just failing to win. Big difference between that and being defeated.

I guess that would be part and parcel of the old "you can't fire me - I quit!"

 

[Catawba]

I guess that would be part and parcel of the old "you can't fire me - I quit!"

Correct, it is a face-saving distinction only.

 

[nota bene]

It is you who are ignoring the fact which I just provided for you.

You remind me of a football fan who takes solace in the fact that they outscored their opponent in three of our quarters, had more first downs, completed more passes, made more first downs, racked up more rushing yardage and kicked more field goals than their opponent.

Too bad they lost and get a big fat L next to their name.

Well, thanks for finally revealing your agenda--the "big fat L" just really says it all.

Color me stunned.

 

[nota bene]

Your point and purpose for starting this thread goes right into the crapper when you call John Kerry a traitor.

IMO - no real vet would make a comment like that.

I'm guessing you don't know too many "real" vets. (But please go ahead and post about all those you do while I laugh at "No real vet would....")

 

[StillBallin75]

Well, thanks for finally revealing your agenda--the "big fat L" just really says it all.

Color me stunned.

I don't really appreciate the way haymarket made his point, but he does make a good one nonetheless. There's too many folks in this thread who think that the plural of tactical victory is strategic victory. This simply isn't the case, and the Vietnam War is exhibit A. My sig does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in this way of thinking, it's too bad most haven't actually read it or comprehended it.

Concluding that the United States "won" the Vietnam war is as erroneous and flawed as concluding that your football team won the game because they won the stat battle - i.e. "look! we dominated the line of scrimmage. we had more total yards on offense. we dominated time of possession. We just happened to lose on the scoreboard, that's all! We didn't really lose the game! Look at all those stats!" Well that doesn't matter. Your team couldn't execute in the red zone. You lost the game, period, and that's all that's really relevant.

Did we accomplish the political objectives we set out to achieve when we first got involved in Vietnam? The answer, by most accounts, is no, no, and hell no, and the evidence lies in the fact that today, Vietnam is a country ruled by a Communist party. To conclude that the United States was victorious in the Vietnam War in the face of these facts is lunacy and self-delusion.

 

[apdst]

sure they did:

Do you understand the difference between World War One and World War Two?

 

[apdst]

It is you who are ignoring the fact which I just provided for you.

You remind me of a football fan who takes solace in the fact that they outscored their opponent in three of our quarters, had more first downs, completed more passes, made more first downs, racked up more rushing yardage and kicked more field goals than their opponent.

Too bad they lost and get a big fat L next to their name.

Too bad we're talking about wars and not football games.

 

[StillBallin75]

Too bad we're talking about wars and not football games.

Too bad this doesn't actually negate his argument.

 

[apdst]

I don't really appreciate the way haymarket made his point, but he does make a good one nonetheless. There's too many folks in this thread who think that the plural of tactical victory is strategic victory. This simply isn't the case, and the Vietnam War is exhibit A. My sig does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in this way of thinking, it's too bad most haven't actually read it or comprehended it.

Concluding that the United States "won" the Vietnam war is as erroneous and flawed as concluding that your football team won the game because they won the stat battle - i.e. "look! we dominated the line of scrimmage. we had more total yards on offense. we dominated time of possession. We just happened to lose on the scoreboard, that's all! We didn't really lose the game! Look at all those stats!" Well that doesn't matter. Your team couldn't execute in the red zone. You lost the game, period, and that's all that's really relevant.

We accomplsied our political objective, as well as our tactical and strategic objective. We forced the North to agree to stay out of South Vietnam. To say that we were defeated in Vietnam, because the North crossed into South Vietnam, after we left is to say that the Allies lost WW1, because Hitler rebuilt the German Army and invaded Poland.

The problem is, Americans have heard it repeated so many times, "The US lost the Vietnam War", that they refuse to look at the actual facts and realize that we didn't. As far as the Lefties and the anti-war folks go, they either can't admit that they're totally wrong, or they won't admit they're totally wrong, because the, "we lost", narrative takes away from the, "we shouldn't have been there", mantra that is constantly parroted. They are obligated to root for American failure. The same thing will happen with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote who you want: Yingling, Clausewitz, Smith, Hart, you name it. The one thing their theories and philosophies can't replace, is historical fact. The one major fact remains, The United States didn't lose the war in Vietnam. If you think I'm wrong, stop posting opinions and philosophies and start posting historical events that prove me wrong.

Did we accomplish the political objectives we set out to achieve when we first got involved in Vietnam? The answer, by most accounts, is no, no, and hell no, and the evidence lies in the fact that today, Vietnam is a country ruled by a Communist party. To conclude that the United States was victorious in the Vietnam War in the face of these facts is lunacy and self-delusion.

Ever hear of the Paris Accords?

 

[apdst]

Too bad this doesn't actually negate his argument.

Actually, it does. Because he's trying to compare apples to oranges. Wars are measured by combat power, not points on a scoreboard.

The fact that proves that the Allies won WW1 is that the Allies were the ones with the combat power.

Next thing we know, we'll be hearing about how the Texans lost the Texas Revolution, because by your standards, that's exactly what happened.

 

[Catawba]

We accomplsied our political objective, as well as our tactical and strategic objective. We forced the North to agree to stay out of South Vietnam. To say that we were defeated in Vietnam, because the North crossed into South Vietnam, after we left is to say that the Allies lost WW1, because Hitler rebuilt the German Army and invaded Poland.

The problem is, Americans have heard it repeated so many times, "The US lost the Vietnam War", that they refuse to look at the actual facts and realize that we didn't. As far as the Lefties and the anti-war folks go, they either can't admit that they're totally wrong, or they won't admit they're totally wrong, because the, "we lost", narrative takes away from the, "we shouldn't have been there", mantra that is constantly parroted. They are obligated to root for American failure. The same thing will happen with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote who you want: Yingling, Clausewitz, Smith, Hart, you name it. The one thing their theories and philosophies can't replace, is historical fact. The one major fact remains, The United States didn't lose the war in Vietnam. If you think I'm wrong, stop posting opinions and philosophies and start posting historical events that prove me wrong.



Ever hear of the Paris Accords?

I see you made no attempt to provide sources to back up your poor knowledge of history, and for good reason. :lamo

 

[apdst]

I see you made no attempt to provide sources to back up your poor knowledge of history, and for good reason. :lamo

You mean, I have to actually post evidence of these common knowledge events? I can't believe--an expert on Vietnam such as yourself--isn't familiar with the Paris Accords.

I can only lead you to the water. I can't make you drink it.

Since book titles scarily count as historical documentation, read this.

http://www.amazon.com/America-Won-Vietnam-Robert-Owens/dp/1594672954

 

[Catawba]

You mean, I have to actually post evidence of these common knowledge events? I can't believe--an expert on Vietnam such as yourself--isn't familiar with the Paris Accords.

The Paris Accords don't back up your claim that the US won the Vietnam war.

I can only lead you to the water. I can't make you drink it.
Since book titles scarily count as historical documentation, read this.

Amazon.com: America Won the Vietnam War! (9781594672958): Robert R. Owens: Books

All this proves is that you found a book author that is as deluded about Vietnam as are you.