Vietnam War, lost or not.
Whispering Death
Active member
bulldogg said:
You should try telling that to Cesar, or a bunch of other Roman Emperors, or Atilla the Hun, or Alexander the great, or the fathers of the American revolution...
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
True
Damien435
Active member
Loss, but as I have said before and will continue to say, this war was lost by the American people, but after the war they attempted to pin the loss on the military. The American people have obligations to the military just as the military has obligations to the people. One of those obligations is supporting the troops during war, as Tom Daschle found in 2004 you can not get away with criticizing the president or our military in a time of war. We also lost because LBJ, who was many things, was definetly NOT a war President and he felt that we could win the war by..... Deleted (language), I don't know what the hell he was thinking but he really Deleted (language) the pooch.
Mod edit: Please be more careful on the forums, thanks.
Mod edit: Please be more careful on the forums, thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dean
Active member
bulldogg said:I also took your statement that way Dean. It makes perfect sense as long as people realise that Vietnam is playing the US for its own benefit in an effort to increase its overall economy and also the US is being played against China by Vietnam as they have a longer list of grievances with the Big Red Chicken than Uncle Sam. The hatred between these two bastions of Asian communism is something to behold when you get one of them wound up on bai jiu and then begin spewing forth.
Vietnam, economically speaking, is between a rock and a hard place. Yes, they are right beside China, and for most countries, that should be enough for them to radically jump-start even the most moribund of economies. The reason why it did not happen was not really Vietnams's fault, but rather China's. Most people forget that these two peoples don't like each other... at all! They have been hereditary enemies since time immemorial, and most people forget that they fought a very nasty war in 1979 during which the Chinese People's Liberation Army was soundly trounced by the Vietnamese. The result was a cold war that is showing only minor signs of thawing even now. And don't try to tell me about the normalization treaty that the two signed last year. I have yet to see one benefit of that treaty other than a slow de-militarization of the border, which remains incomplete. AFAIK, there have been very few if any economic spin-offs resulting from that treaty, and I do not hesitate in saying that it will be many years before there are any. In that part of the world, memories are too long.
Now, China did indeed support Vietnam militarily during the Vietnam war, but their support was lacklustre to say the least. Most of the military and economic support actually came from the USSR, and in the post Vietnam-US war perod, it was the USSR that propped up Vietnam's economy. With the fall of the USSR, Vietnam's economy collapsed, which in the great scheme of things, this was simply a noise heard around the corner. That left them two possible trade partners, France and the US. France does not really have a market for Vietnamese goods, and the market that did exist at the time was being well served. Nonetheless, any expansion of those markets, and subsequent improvement of Vietnam's economy, was not going to happen.
This left the US. For the US, there are some big advantages to trading with Vietnam. The main one is that it gives them more influence in that area of the world, and the influence is quite positive. While they are China's largest trading partner, the US has little influence in that country. Trade with Vietnam, OTOH, would allow the US a great opportunity to gain more influence in an area of the world where they have been losing it steadily since the end of WW II.
At the end of WW II, the US instituted the Marshall Plan, whose effect was to re-build a devastated Europe. This action made the US a major player in Europe for 50 years after the end of the war. Needless to say, the manner in which the US left Vietnam and the subsequent fall of South Vietnam meant that US influence in that part of the world was effectively zero, zilch, nada, nothing, and rien. However, this trade treaty and normalization of relations gives the US a real opportunity to regain influence in SE Asia, and it gives Vietnam the one thing they have never had... a real trade partner. The best thing of all is that it will cost the US nothing. The result: The US loses the Vietnam war, and wins in the end.
A healthy, happy and prosperous New Year to all.
Dean.
Last edited:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Nice and smart analysis, I agree with you and share your hopes.
Damien435
Active member
lol, I like the last line there. "The US loses the Vietnam war, and wins in the end." From my understanding that is kind of how the war went, we won the battles but lost the war. Khai Sahn(sp?) is a great example of that, the Marines held out undersiege until relief arrived, won the battle, yet only months later quietly evactuated the base, allowing the VC to march in unopposed.
DTop
Active member
That wasn't exactly how it happened. Khe San was an attempt by the NVA (not the VC) to do to the US what they did to France at Dien Bien Phu. The siege of the firebase started in January 1968 and lasted until April of the same year. 5 regiments (~5,000) of US Marines repelled repeated attempts to overrun the base by 20,000 to 40,000 NVA.
Once the weather cleared, US air power was brought to bear and in April 6th, the base was reinforced by US Army (2nd Cav). Two days later the 2/7 Cav linked up with the 26th Marines to officially relieve the base. The NVA was forced to withdraw and give up the notion of taking the base.
The base was indeed abandoned but it was in June of '68 and because the base had no further military value to the US and there was nobody left to "march in unopposed". It's amazing how the facts can get twisted and tweaked over time.
It's also interesting to note that nearly a quarter of all television news was devoted to covering the battle, and was even higher for some. For example, CBS devoted half of their news shows to the siege. The intensely televised coverage was one of the hallmarks of Vietnam conflict in general.
Just thought I'd interject some facts about Khe Sahn at this point in the discussion.
Once the weather cleared, US air power was brought to bear and in April 6th, the base was reinforced by US Army (2nd Cav). Two days later the 2/7 Cav linked up with the 26th Marines to officially relieve the base. The NVA was forced to withdraw and give up the notion of taking the base.
The base was indeed abandoned but it was in June of '68 and because the base had no further military value to the US and there was nobody left to "march in unopposed". It's amazing how the facts can get twisted and tweaked over time.
It's also interesting to note that nearly a quarter of all television news was devoted to covering the battle, and was even higher for some. For example, CBS devoted half of their news shows to the siege. The intensely televised coverage was one of the hallmarks of Vietnam conflict in general.
Just thought I'd interject some facts about Khe Sahn at this point in the discussion.
Last edited:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Thank you for straightening things up and providing a clarification on Khe San, DTop.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Yet another case where the NVA played a very big part in the Vietnam War. The ridiculous and silly thing of it all was that the USA was not allowed to respond with a full counterattack against North Vietnam. The machine that drove the Vietnam War against us was sitting in Hanoi and we kept ourselves well clear of it (cept boming it of course). We were a giant and powerful military machine with its arms tied behind its back, but kickin butt regardless. But you can't win a war that way.DTop said:
The really amusing thing is how greatly people tend to underestimate the NVA role in the war. As stated before, without the NVA resupplying and smuggling in NVA regulars into South Vietnam, the Vietcong woulda been pretty close to finished, especially after the Tet Offensive.
DTop
Active member
Actually, if the NVA wasn't involved then the whole purpose of the American invlovement wouldn't have existed, at least in my opinion. That is to say that if the VC were the only force fighting the South Vietnamese, then there would have been no question about the conflict being solely an internal (civil) war. But because the North chose to support the VC and to invade the South with their own troops, coupled with the fact that the USSR and China chose to support, supply, and advise the North, the conflict became a war of proxy for these bigger powers.
In those days, the American government's concern about increased communist expansion in the world (the famous Domino effect) was the reason for US involvement in the Vietnam conflict in the first place.
You have to place yourself in this time and the prevalent mindset that existed. The Domino Effect stemmed from the policy of containment established by President Truman as his foreign policy doctrine. It was based on several premises:
1. The USSR was always fanatically expansionist and determined to control the world.
2. Any new communist government would inevitably end up as part of the USSR.
3. Communism and the USSR must be contained by any means short of all out war.
The last premise is key in understanding why the US never decided to invade the North or to even officially declare war. It was believed that either act would have brought the same response from the USSR.
In those days, the American government's concern about increased communist expansion in the world (the famous Domino effect) was the reason for US involvement in the Vietnam conflict in the first place.
You have to place yourself in this time and the prevalent mindset that existed. The Domino Effect stemmed from the policy of containment established by President Truman as his foreign policy doctrine. It was based on several premises:
1. The USSR was always fanatically expansionist and determined to control the world.
2. Any new communist government would inevitably end up as part of the USSR.
3. Communism and the USSR must be contained by any means short of all out war.
The last premise is key in understanding why the US never decided to invade the North or to even officially declare war. It was believed that either act would have brought the same response from the USSR.
Whispering Death
Active member
Yeah, look, you can try and dance around it however you want. And if you are a Vietnam veteran I can definately see how you wouldn't want to admit it.
But all that blood and treasure we spent was for a lost war. We had the war 75% won but the American public decided to cut and run... so we did when we had the majority of the war won.
It may have been one of the worst strategic decisions in American millitary history but just because it's stupid doesn't mean we didn't lose. America gave into left-wing propoganda and deciet and we retreated back accross the ocean and let South Vietnam die.
But all that blood and treasure we spent was for a lost war. We had the war 75% won but the American public decided to cut and run... so we did when we had the majority of the war won.
It may have been one of the worst strategic decisions in American millitary history but just because it's stupid doesn't mean we didn't lose. America gave into left-wing propoganda and deciet and we retreated back accross the ocean and let South Vietnam die.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Whispering Death said:
That ^^^ is one ballsy statement and a clear testament to the sense of security and authority sitting behind a monitor with a keyboard can bestow upon a person.
I daresay it is a statement I would love to see you make to any Vietnam Vet face to face. Just let me know when and where you do it so I can get a good seat.
zander_0633
Milforum Gnat
Well, How come the US had to retreat, I thought the Vietcons forced the US troops into street battles?
Whispering Death
Active member
bulldogg said:
You're supposed to be a teacher right bulldogg? Then where's the logic in that? Just because it might anger some veterans means that we didn't lose Vietnam? Feelings > Facts?
I'd love to say that the Vietnam war ended when S.Vietnam became the fastest growing capitalist economy in the world and China disentigrated into civil war with the liberal democratic army leading the reunification and becomming America's second best ally in the world... right behind South Vietnam as America's biggest ally.
But that's not the way it played out. The Vietnam war ended with American soldiers fighting grueling smashmouth football and standing on the enemy's 20 yard line. In the red zone, within striking distance of the goal in the year 1970. But we live in a democracy, and the liberal lies convinced America to throw in the towel. They said enough is enough, we can't have our boys getting banged up anymore in this grueling fight. So the liberal American people gave up the war, forced the politicians to gave up the cause, and ordered the army to retreat back across the ocean.
As a soldier all you can do is follow orders, and the naive liberal mindset gave our servicemen no other choice but the order to give it up and go home.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
No, it was the irreverance of the remark that drew my comment. The way you began that post was very condescending and cheeky as hell bruv. But like I said, by all means say that to a Vietnam vet, just let me know when and where I always enjoy watching someone being "educated".
Whispering Death
Active member
zander_0633 said:
So what? Just because we killed them in streets instead of rice fields? It doesn't matter where we killed the enemy, we killed them in huge numbers and absolutely decimated them in every single battle of the war. Every time the vietcong came to fight they where destroyed. That, combined with the "hearts and minds" program where we gave food and economic aid to villiages who helped us stopped the insurgentcy after a few years and convinced the South Vietnamese that this was their destiny.
Of course this never penetrated the liberal media. Instead it was just bad news every night and liberal propoganda on the airwaves. In the end the American people forced all our brave servicemen to leave the job unfinished and the underprepared South Vietnamese helpless against all the weight of the communist countries' alliance.
Whispering Death
Active member
bulldogg said:But like I said, by all means say that to a Vietnam vet, just let me know when and where I always enjoy watching someone being "educated".
I'm not sure I'd take any pleasure from "educating" a Vietnam vet. What the American people did to those guys from sending them to fight a war halfway around the world to forcing them to stop right when they where winning to spitting on them when they came back... it sickens me, but it's the truth. But maybe if this current generation learns the truth of Vietnam they wouldn't be so quick to try and pull the same s*** with our boys currently in Iraq?