19-07-2005 22:29									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Wezil You chose a time when the Brits were somewhat busy with bigger fish to fry.

It's not our fault the British kept at it. Impressing 6,000 Americans into service with the British Navy, attacking the Chesapeake, setting up embargoes and seizing nearly a thousand American ships..yes, it's clear that the Americans were the one itching to attack unprovoked the British Empire.

	19-07-2005 22:30									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Actually the causus belli was impressment of US merchant seamen into service for the Brits. A clear indication that the Brits did not respect the US sovereignty nor their impartiality in the war in Europe. A policy that decidedly ended after the war of 1812. (perhaps due to the fact that the war in Europe had come to a close but moreover that the Brits got their a$$es handed to them especially when they supposedly brought the full weight of their attention to the US conflict at the end of the war)

Victory for the US.

	19-07-2005 22:30									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: The ultimate American objective in the War of 1812 was the conquest of Canada.

I love the delusions of Canucks!

Of course that whole impressment thing and British troops in the Ohio River Valley didn't mean anything. NO, it was conquering Canada!

	19-07-2005 22:32									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wezil What about the beginning? Glad you agree with my point.

The beginning doesn't matter, (and quite truthfully we sucked in the beginning.) Its the finishing that matters.

US closes the deal.

	19-07-2005 22:33									#35
	Tired of ads?

Silly Canadians. Getting pwnd by thier own threadjack.

	19-07-2005 22:41									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Battle of Thames On October 5, 1813, at the Battle of Thames, American forces cross into Canada across Lake Erie after the American victory on the lake. British forces, under General Proctor, are forced to withdraw, with American forces following closely. The American forces catch up with the British and Indians, and decisively defeat them. Tecumseh, the Indian chief, is killed in the battle.

Pwned then, pwnded now.

	19-07-2005 22:44									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

dp hunted down and destroyed

Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on 20-07-2005 at 00:47

	19-07-2005 22:46									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The results of the war were, IMO, thus:

No one gained any serious territory or concessions. However, the Americans and Canadians both came out on top in that both countries experienced a heightened sense of nationalism, both felt like they had proven themselves able to defend and provide for themselves. Additionally, the war ended with the US recognized as able to hold its own against one of the greatest armies, and the greatest navy, in the world; after the war, the US military was able to make the changes that would allow it to score another win, with the Spanish. Then there was the economic benefit, when we adjusted to deal with the British blockades. And the fact that the British no longer supported the Indian tribes that were attacking American settlements.

All things considered, I'd say the British came in third, the Canadians second, and Americans first.

And an interesting quote as I browsed through a couple websites on the war:

quote: Canadian historian Pierre Berton has written that if the War of 1812 had never happened Canada would be part of the United States today, as more and more American settlers would have arrived, and Canadian nationalism would never have developed.

	19-07-2005 22:55									#39
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Canadian historian Pierre Berton has written that if the War of 1812 had never happened Canada would be part of the United States today, as more and more American settlers would have arrived, and Canadian nationalism would never have developed.

Very true. Which is why I think the Americans beat the British, but the Canadians got the best deal of everyone.

Canada > USA > Britain

	19-07-2005 22:55									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by sprucemoose3311 how did the us lose vietnam if us involvement ended in 1973, pulled out all us military personel and left by april. then wietnam fell due to high corruption in may of 1975...

Let's see: 11 years, 58k dead, 153k wounded, a huge stain on the US military credibility and morale, massive distrust of the government at home, alienation of returning servicemen and the take-over of the south by the communists anyway. Yep, you guys won the **** out of that war.

	19-07-2005 22:58									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Even I, The Reagan, admit the Vietnam War was a huge defeat, the result of the military not being given an unchanging objective: complete victory.

	19-07-2005 23:04									#42
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Saras And achieved almost none of the objectives.

Actually both sides achieved all of their pre war objectives. This goes a long way towards explaining why the war ended.

	19-07-2005 23:08									#43
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by sprucemoose3311 how did the us lose vietnam if us involvement ended in 1973, pulled out all us military personel and left by april. then wietnam fell due to high corruption in may of 1975...

US 'lost' vietnam because we fought a huge war which didn't achieved any of it's objectives. This was probably inevitable since the US failed to actually define any objectives that could be achieved through such a limited war.

No question there was a war and we didn't win it, so trying to argue we didn't lose it is basically pointless regardless of the lopsided endless series of (ultimately irrelevant) total military victories on the battlefield.

	19-07-2005 23:11									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes, the brits pwnd boney. That's what really mattered.

	20-07-2005 00:30									#45
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Let's see: 11 years, 58k dead, 153k wounded, a huge stain on the US military credibility and morale, massive distrust of the government at home, alienation of returning servicemen and the take-over of the south by the communists anyway. Yep, you guys won the **** out of that war.

yet another brilliant quote from someone who has never researched authoratative sources on the subject....

right up there with the journalists who continue to perpetuate myths as facts, journalists who have never even read a book on the war

	20-07-2005 00:35									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by sprucemoose3311 yet another brilliant quote from someone who has never researched authoratative sources on the subject.... right up there with the journalists who continue to perpetuate myths as facts, journalists who have never even read a book on the war

Care to point out one of the "myths" from his post. I'm curious...

	20-07-2005 00:44									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo US 'lost' vietnam because we fought a huge war which didn't achieved any of it's objectives. This was probably inevitable since the US failed to actually define any objectives that could be achieved through such a limited war. No question there was a war and we didn't win it, so trying to argue we didn't lose it is basically pointless regardless of the lopsided endless series of (ultimately irrelevant) total military victories on the battlefield.

the goal set forth by lyndon johnson was to fight a war of attrition to force the north to the bargaining table and force a peace settlement. we were afraid to have the chinese enter the war like korea. the north did not want to recognize the south as legitimate and the south felt the same. it took years before all three sides even agreed upon how to start peace talks.

Nixon came in and created a policy of vietnamization. us troops would be replaced by vietnamese troops. this worked well, by the time of the peace treaty, the vietnamese made up large percentages of active combat units. when aided by air cover they were just as effective as US troops. then peace came.

preemptive:
no one has brought it up yet but i will preemt it:
The tet offensive was a US victory. initially the NVA succeded in certain areas. HOWEVER at the end of the battle the North had lost so much man power and resources that they could not launch an offensive until 1975.

	20-07-2005 00:48									#48
	Suffering from ads?

That's all good but you quoted Kontiki with your sarcasm then, when questioned, you came back with a rebuttal to Geronimo.....

What gives?

	20-07-2005 00:52									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wezil Care to point out one of the "myths" from his post. I'm curious...

he didnt post a myth nor did i say he did...

i said his quote is comparable to those who dont know much about vietnam

	20-07-2005 00:54									#50
	Tired of ads?

Implying he was somehow wrong....

I ask again, where and how?

	20-07-2005 01:11									#51
	Inflate your Upload Space

Let's see: 11 years, 58k dead, 153k wounded, a huge stain on the US military credibility and morale, massive distrust of the government at home, alienation of returning servicemen and the take-over of the south by the communists anyway. Yep, you guys won the **** out of that war.




lets break this down: 11 years... thats 2 years too many... unless you count covert operations during french/indochina war... then thats not enough years. the first us troops killed was in 1956.

how was the military's credibility hurt: the us won against a strong NVA that had:
MiG-21
The Soviet MiG-21 served as the primary high-altitude fighter in the North Vietnamese arsenal. Capable of flying more than twice the speed of sound and armed with a 30mm cannon and air-to-air missiles, the MiG-21 disrupted American bombing raids, shooting down bombers and engaging in furious and often victorious dogfights with American fighter planes. The highly-maneuverable MiG was also easy to maintain and could operate from unimproved airfields. The MiG-17, an earlier model in the MiG fighter series, also saw frequent service as a fighter/interceptor in North Vietnam.

Specifications for the MiG-21:

- Year: 1955
- Engine: Tumansky R-11F-300 with 12,675 lbs. thrust (with afterburner)
- Span: 23 ft. 6 in.
- Length: 51 ft. 9 in.
- Height: 15 ft. 9 in.
- Weight: 18,080 lbs. max.
- Maximum speed: 1,300 m.p.h.
- Cruising speed: 550 m.p.h.
- Ceiling: 50,000 ft.
- Range: 400 miles
- Crew: one
- Armament: one NR-30 30mm cannon plus two K-13A air-to-air missiles

The N.V.A. relied on the Soviet-made T-54/55 as one of their main battle tanks. Fitted out with a 100mm, turret-mounted main gun, the T54/55 fired anti-armor and high explosive rounds at a range of about 16,000 yards. A four-man crew controlled the tank, which traveled at a top speed of about 50 m.p.h. The tank's armor varied in thicknesses from 20mm on the underside to 203mm at the turret. The T54/55 weighed 36 tons.

BTR 60 Armored Personnel Carrier
The Soviet-made BTR armored personnel carrier served as the Vietnamese counterpart of the M113. Several different models of the BTR series were used, including the BTR 60P, an eight-wheeled amphibious vehicle with a crew of two, which carried up to sixteen soldiers. While the sides of the vehicle were protected by armor in thicknesses of up to 10mm, the roofless BTR 60 offered no cover for attack from above. The BTR 60 traveled on land at speeds of up to 50 m.p.h. and in water at about 10 m.p.h.

DP 7.62mm Light Machine Gun
The North Vietnamese used the DP light machine gun as their squad-level, automatic support weapon. This counterpart to the American M-60 fed cartridges using a pan magazine or belt, and had a range of about 875 yards. Based on a Soviet design, the DP 7.62 was provided to the Vietnamese by both China and the Soviet Union

SA7 Grail Anti-Aircraft Missile
In North Vietnam, American pilots faced a deadly barrage of radar-guided, base-stationed anti-aircraft fire. In the South, one of the biggest threats to American aircraft was the SA7 Grail. A shoulder-fired, portable weapon, the Grail could be moved quickly and concealed easily, making it difficult to deter. Grail missiles downed numerous American planes and helicopters

both sides were well equipped with modern weapons


alienation of returning servicemen: not disputed... but i question how much of this was actually present versus what our modern interpretation is.


so the US lost because the south collapsed anyways after the US left. i guess that means if a former british colony falls to communism britain loses also.

	20-07-2005 01:23									#52
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Okay, thank you.

So you quibble over the length of time. Too little or too long depending on your interpretation of when US involvement began.

Casualties you don't mention so I assume you have no big differenece with those numbers (this was the only part I was questioning myself...).

You dispute it had an effect on US military credibility - I disagree but it is a debatable issue methinks.

You don't mention morale - You agree it was bad on military morale then?

Distrust of government - again not mentioned so presumed not to be in dispute.

Alienation of returning servicemen - Was present. Again we can debate scale but you accept the point.

Yes, when the south collapsed you lost. If a former Brit colony falls to communists after that much blood and gold spent to "save" it then yes, they too would have lost.

So, in effect you agree with most of his post but disagree on time involved (as you admit - would depend on interpretation) and whether it adversely affected the credibility of the US military.

Sorry but hardly "right up there with the journalists who continue to perpetuate myths as facts, journalists who have never even read a book on the war".

Kontiki was more accurate than not from what I see.

	20-07-2005 01:24									#53
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by sprucemoose3311 preemptive: no one has brought it up yet but i will preemt it: The tet offensive was a US victory. initially the NVA succeded in certain areas. HOWEVER at the end of the battle the North had lost so much man power and resources that they could not launch an offensive until 1975.

Almost correct. The Tet Offensive was a Viet Cong operation, not an NVA operation. After the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong no longer had an effective fighting force.

	20-07-2005 01:24									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

how many migs, tanks, and such did vietcong/nva have in south vietnam?

	20-07-2005 01:31									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: how was the military's credibility hurt: the us won against a strong NVA

As far as credibility goes, what counts is perceptions, not kill ratios. Most people came away with the perception the US lost.

	20-07-2005 01:43									#56
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Didn't Britain fight pretty damn hard for India?

His point stands, the American's objective was to prevent South Vietnam from being communist, which they did while involved, and in fact it maintained iteself for two years when we left.

58K killed and 130K wounded over the 11 years given is actually not bad at all when you considered how many servicemen fought/scale of the operation. But if us acheiving our pimary objective (as often as it was changed) and suffering those casualties costitutes a defeat, how does suffering 2-3 million casualties and your country being a smoldering ruin but having gotten South Vietnam consitute a victoy?

Unless victory simply means controling the territiry, in which case alot of people here a hipocrits concerning some other conflicts.

	20-07-2005 01:50									#57
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The US achieved their war aims and the North achieved theirs. Huzzah! Love all around and happiness for all.



You just have to wonder why a war was necessary in the first place then ...

	20-07-2005 01:57									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I do.

And I think neither won. It is a bit insincere on the part of Americans to crush the NVA enough so that it takes a few years to rebuild, leave knowing that the South could hold out for a few but not forever.

And of course if your country is left in the state North and South Vietnam was in, especially when your military was rendered impotent every time you tried anything, it is a bit insincereto call that victory too.

The whole thing was stupid, especially since the North will end up a capitalist democracy eventually anyways, just like everywhere else.

	20-07-2005 01:58									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: His point stands, the American's objective was to prevent South Vietnam from being communist, which they did while involved, and in fact it maintained iteself for two years when we left.

Yep, great show But from my POV I'd say that "58K killed and 130K wounded" is too big a prize to pay for just eleven years. Plus the fact that the US lost a lot of credability in the rest of the world.

	20-07-2005 02:02									#60
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos The whole thing was stupid, especially since the North will end up a capitalist democracy eventually anyways, just like everywhere else.

I wish I shared your optimism.