01-05-2005 23:05									#91
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned In a way, yes. But it was criminal for Johnson to conduct the war the way he did, getting Americans and others killed by the hundreds of thousand without any plan for victory. As I said, Johnson and McNamara intentionally denied Westmorland the troops necessary to go on the offensive.

HeII Johnson and McNamara draw up the list of place to bomb without any Military Commander reviewing or having any imput.

Even in McNamara book on the war, he himself said he was scared of China and Soviet Union.

	01-05-2005 23:13									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned And, btw, had Kennedy lived, I think he would have done the same thing as Nixon. He was not an idiot like Johnson.

Actually it is reported that the speech he did not give because he was killed the day before was going to pull us out. He was going to trained the SVA but not fight the war.

	01-05-2005 23:22									#93
	Support Apolyton

quote: The rules refer to legal and moral orders. But all officers must be prepared to refuse illegal or immoral orders. The problem in the Vietnam case was to decide whether the order was moral, if it was admissibly legal.

I fail to see where you are going. A military officer blatanly advocating a course of action contrary to that of the Commander and Cheif after a policy has been accepted, publicly, is at least insubortination, at worst undermining the chain of command.

Opinion and order are not the same thing. While not invading NV or at least not bombing it completely and continually, was a bad idea on the part of the vairous admininstrantions, bad idea does not=illegal.

If the Libs want to use the whole follow the chain to the top stategy they use in Iraq, then the responsibity for the loss of the Vietnam war rests squarely on the sholders of Democrat Liberal presidents.

	01-05-2005 23:38									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Ditto.

Thats just a reiteration of the "we lost because of the hippies" argument. A weak and flawed case.

We lost because we failed to take into account the cultural and ecological knowledge that the NV had of their own territory and people. The US went in there like they were fighting the Germans in Europe. In the end it was no contest.

	01-05-2005 23:43									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos I fail to see where you are going. A military officer blatanly advocating a course of action contrary to that of the Commander and Cheif after a policy has been accepted, publicly, is at least insubortination, at worst undermining the chain of command.

A few guys have been responsible for the death of 50000 US Boys, and the suffering of half a million wounded. Any of those guys could have consider that his duty toward the American people was worth a possible insubordination. Even without thinking about the Viet lifes, there was a solid ground for refusal.

	02-05-2005 00:02									#96
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Diss, you know this would not be true.

why not? They really put it to us in the Korean war.

	02-05-2005 01:39									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: ecological knowledge

Lefties

quote: A few guys have been responsible for the death of 50000 US Boys, and the suffering of half a million wounded. Any of those guys could have consider that his duty toward the American people was worth a possible insubordination. Even without thinking about the Viet lifes, there was a solid ground for refusal.

Lefties

	02-05-2005 01:41									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Righties

it works both ways.

but I agree. left handed peopel suck.

	02-05-2005 01:44									#99
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Thats just a reiteration of the "we lost because of the hippies" argument. A weak and flawed case.

They lost because no-one can win against nationalist guerilla movements once the locals have decided that you suck.

How long will it take the Yankee morons to realize this in Iraq?

	02-05-2005 01:46									#100
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Thats just a reiteration of the "we lost because of the hippies" argument. A weak and flawed case. They lost because no-one can win against nationalist guerilla movements once the locals have decided that you suck. How long will it take the Yankee morons to realize this in Iraq?

the difference is most of the locals have not decided that we suck (at least no yet). Most of the Iraqis support the americans.

	02-05-2005 01:47									#101
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Lefties

If you were capable of independent thought, you're realize he meant geographic.

And of course, some of us think our duty to the nation exceeds duty to the President. It's sad and terryifying to know that soldiers consider their duty to the President exceeds their duty to the American people. You are exactly the last people who should be allowed in the military. You're all potential traitors to the Constitution.

	02-05-2005 01:48									#102
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Dissident the difference is most of the locals have not decided that we suck (at least no yet). Most of the Iraqis support the americans.

No, most of the locals haven't turned against us. That's not the same thing. In the areas in which the rebels operate, however, most of the population is against us, and that's why they can't be rooted out.

	02-05-2005 02:37									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And of course, some of us think our duty to the nation exceeds duty to the President. It's sad and terryifying to know that soldiers consider their duty to the President exceeds their duty to the American people. You are exactly the last people who should be allowed in the military. You're all potential traitors to the Constitution.

Lefties

You hate us when we act on our own initiative because of what we believe, and you hate us when we leave civil decisions to politicians.

Frankly I am happy the power I weild in your name is subject to the control of a president elected by the people, you, and not whatever belief I happen to hold at the moment (which I express by voting myself). This system is apparently working, as you are still alive.

But I can go Prussian on you if you wish

quote: You're all potential traitors to the Constitution

Wow, did I just here a communist "real revolutionary" talk to me about uholding the constitution? Weird.

	02-05-2005 03:10									#104
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Joseph Actually it is reported that the speech he did not give because he was killed the day before was going to pull us out. He was going to trained the SVA but not fight the war.

Joseph, I don't doubt this for a second. McNamara clearly understood that there is no possibility of victory without invading the North and it is no possibility of invading the North without risking a war with China. McNamara advised Kennedy to withdraw the troops by the middle of 1964 and apparently that was what Kennedy was going to do. When Johnson became president he called McNamara and told McNamara that he was going to reverse the decision to withdraw and instead go the other way. McNamara tried to talk to Johnson to explain to him the problem in getting involved on the ground in Vietnam without dealing with the ultimate problem of China. Johnson simply would not listen.

Now we come to the Nixon presidency. Nixon clearly understood that the solution to Vietnam problem was to remove North Vietnam's China card. This he did in the summer of 1972. This quickly lead to peace accords just prior to the election of 1972, but when the Commies balked, Nixon threatened to invade and that is when they capitulated.

It is interesting how liberals try to distort and revise history. Just now there was a movie on TV talking about how Johnson's advisers tried to get him to send troops to Vietnam. In fact it was the other way around as the advisers, most particularly Robert S. McNamara, wanted to withdraw troops.

	02-05-2005 03:17									#105
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think we lost the political battle, and then there was no way to win. The US kept trying to win the political war and it just made things worse, especially for the troops and back home.

	02-05-2005 03:21									#106
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia when youre in country for what, 10 years, you cant say we never tried to win.

Depends on what your objectives are. Some people made a lot of money off of that war - a whole hell of a lot of money.

	02-05-2005 03:29									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

nm

	02-05-2005 03:34									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I think we lost the political battle, and then there was no way to win. The US kept trying to win the political war and it just made things worse, especially for the troops and back home.

Tet was decisive. After Tet, there was no further discussion of victory by anybody.

	03-05-2005 08:19									#109
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ned Tet was decisive. After Tet, there was no further discussion of victory by anybody.

Two thing happen after Tet.

One the VC were no longer a threat of any kind. We had kicked their a$$ big time and until the end of the war, we fought the NVA all the way.

Two when W. Conkrite of CBS News came home and said we cannot win the war because of Tet, the antiwar moment was given the green light it needed to start masses demonstration against the war.

From then on we were not going to win on the Political front.

	03-05-2005 11:23									#110
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

We also pulled back from Khe Sahn, giving up our plans for invasion of the North, and began "Vietnamization." I never again heard anybody predict a victory. Shortly thereafter, Johnson gave is "resignation" speech, and the whole of the political landscape was about withdrawal and ending the war.

	26-05-2005 21:46									#111
	Tired of ads?

"Two when W. Conkrite of CBS News came home and said we cannot win the war because of Tet, the antiwar moment was given the green light it needed to start masses demonstration against the war."

I was surprised at Walter for doing this. The reaction was so powerful that it meant that one person, not elected by anyone, could change the course of a national effort. I read once that Johnson said, 'If I've lost Walter I've lost the people"...or the war or something.

	26-05-2005 21:54									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ted didn't say we couldn't win. Ted said, "I thought we were supposed to be winning this thing!" In other words, he publically accused the U.S. government of lying, which it was. That it what hurt the government.

We would have lost the war anyway. It was never ours to win.

	26-05-2005 22:04									#113
	Put an end to popups!

Korea was ours to win but Vietnam was not?

	26-05-2005 22:32									#114
	Got spare money?

1. AFAIK, no one in the US, including the military,wanted a war with China. Aside from the Korea precedent, at this time such a war would have been a grand strategic gift to the USSR. I dont think a land invasion of the North is a realistic approach.
2. Given that, a workable strategy would have required cutting off the VC, and NVA units in the South, from their supply line from NVA, the Ho Chi Minh trail. Cutting the line at the border didnt work, as the western border of South Vietnam was too mountainous for armor, too canopied by jungle to be patrolled by air, and too long to be protected by infantry/border guards without a far larger force than it was worth it to the US to put in.
3. The only alternate strategy ive ever seen, that halfway makes sense, would have been to go into southern Laos and stay there, establishing a line from the DMZ across to the Thai border, perpindicular to the Ho Chi Minh trail. However, apart from the political difficulties, this is still rough terrain, if shorter than the entire South Viet Namese border, and Im not sure it would have been militarily feasible.
4. Did we in fact lose? The announced grand strategic purpose of the war was to prevent dominoes from falling down through southeast asia. By the time we got out, countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia were arguably more stable than they were in 1965. Ergo the grand strategic goal was achieved.
5. Was it a grand strategically stupid war, even granted 4? Arguably the war restrained the Sino-Soviet split, which only began to really assert itself when the US began to withdraw in 1969. Arguably an earlier open Sino-Soviet split would have been worth say, losing Thailand.

	26-05-2005 22:55									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Interesting post lotm, I'll be mulling that over all day at work.

	26-05-2005 23:07									#116
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Oh sure, lotm says it, and you'll mull it over. I say it, and you ignore me.

	26-05-2005 23:11									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara No, most of the locals haven't turned against us. That's not the same thing. In the areas in which the rebels operate, however, most of the population is against us, and that's why they can't be rooted out.

Overall, most of the local support the political process with which we are aligned, and either A. Support us (the Kurds and secular Shiites) or B. Take their cues from Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other Shiite leaders, who want us to stay, for now.

As for the Sunni Triangle, somewhere between 15 and 20% of the Sunni Arab population voted on Jan. 30, despite the boycott calls of even groups like the AMS and IIP. One assumes that in addition there were some who wanted to vote, but stayed home out of fear. So its likely at least 25% of the Sunni Arab population supports the political process, and is opposed to the stand of both the insurgents and the AMS. Of the remaining 75% only a minority (25%?) actively support the insurgency. The remainded seem to sympathize with it, but can probably be led away from it by political concessions, improvements to material life, etc. That is why the discussions of Sunni participation in the constitution writing process, future elections, etc is so important. The military campaign is important as well, since continued insecurity slows down economic reconstruction.

	26-05-2005 23:18									#118
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"Oh sure, lotm says it, and you'll mull it over. I say it, and you ignore me. "

Not so! At work I occasionally start laughing for no apparent reason because of you.

	26-05-2005 23:20									#119
	Tired of ads?

NO ending is inevitable, but the Vietnam war was a marvelous example of stupidity.

As for the Domino notion: it is an inherently moronic idea, always has been, always will, whether the dominos are supposed to be falling for communism or democracy.

The Vietnam war did nothing to "stabilize" any of the South East Asian states around Vietnam: Local murderous thugs did that (I guess the muder of 500,000 people will do a lot to "stabalize" a country ). If anything, Cambodia fell to the murderous Khmer Rouge regime thanks to our invasion of that country and the chaos we created trying to stop the North Vietnamese. Its a sad truth that it then took the Vietnamese regime to remove the Khmer Rouge form power.

The sad fact was that when it came to it, the 'South" Vietnamese were not willing to put up a to the death fight for their own country. Did any ARVN units fight as courageously for their own "state" as fellow Southeners in the VC fought for a reunited comunist Vietnam? Its does not seem so- in the final offensive SV fell like a house of cards.

Its hard to think how one state can save another when the very members of that state don't themselves fight for it to the death.

	26-05-2005 23:26									#120
	Re: Was it inevitable that the US lost the Vietnam war? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lancer How did the US lose, and how might we have won? I think we lost because we wouldn't invade North Vietnam, and we could have won by doing so. 1) Leave the countryside in the hands of the ARVN and consentrate all US forces, except the marines, south of the DMZ. 2) Drive across the DMZ. The NVA will come south to meet the attack. The consentration of NVA will present many targets for tactical and strategic air attack. Perhaps this will also lessen pressure on the ARVN as well. 3) When the NVA come south, the marines do an end around and land behind them supported by naval gunfire, carrier and ground based air. 4) Hit from the north and south, by tactical and strategic airpower and naval gunfire, the NVA would be defeated. Then the US forces drive on Hanoi against whatever remains. 5) The VC would wither on the vine without the support of North Vietnam.

We wouldn't have won, under any circumstances:

(a) The Phrench held Hanoi and Haiphong and the entire south for 8 years, until they had their souffles handed to them at Dien Bien Phu.

(b) The froggie legionaires at Dien Bien Phu kicked ass if you look at the casualty counts, and they kicked ass regularly the rest of the time too.

(c) The Vietnamese weren't going anywhere, it was their country.

(d) The Phrench, US, etc., were a long way from home.

(e) The Vietnamese were willing to take the casualties without question. We weren't.

(f) Since the Phrench held Hanoi and Haiphong and the entire south, and lost after 8 years because they said "**** it, this hole ain't worth the cost," it's a fallacy to think if we'd only invaded Hanoi, we'd "win."

(g) You totally fail to understand NVA/VC tactics. They tried us at Ia Drang not because they needed to, but because they wanted an opportunity to test our capabilities. They tried us at Khe Sanh because they understood the political aspects of it, and realized worldwide attention on one focal battle involving a siege would lead to all sorts of Deja Vu questions.

They won Tet, hugely, because we thought in terms of, and focused on, casualty counts. They imposed the political lesson that even after years, billions of dollars and tens of thousands of dead, "we can still simultaneously operate all over your country."

The NVA would never have concentrated for a head on fight against a concentrated US invasion force. They would have dispersed all over the place and resorted to the sort of guerilla warfare that they employed against the Japanese and Phrench.

Until we said "**** it, this hole ain't worth it."