 |
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
Could America have won the Vietnam War? Before I give you my arguement for why we could not have, I must give you a quote by Hitler: "For the Third Reich to win, the enemy must become (like) the Third Reich." This quote is very interesting, because I beleive it summed up what was happening during Vietnam: we were becoming like the enemy to beat the enemy.
Now, when I say 'win' I do not simply mean conquer North Vietnam or establish a friendly government there. By win, I mean doing those things while keeping America's ideals alive.
I personally think that we could not have won without becoming the enemy. I think America would have to have become a totalitarian state to win. My reasons for thinking so: Martial Law was established in Ohio for a short time. The National Guard killed innocent students, simply turning and opening fire on crowds, on windows. Operation Chaos made government investigations of 7800 Americans. Protest groups everywhere were becoming militant. I think if we stayed in Vietnam any longer, anarchy would start erupting in many places, and soon we would become like our enemy, eliminating free press, jailing people for no good reason, overall destruction of what America stands (or stood for... ).
Do you people agree/disagree with me? Am I saying what has already been said?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
Notyoueither---I think you are referring to a joke among the soldiers there (I don't find it quite funny). It went something like this: "The best way to win the war is too load all the friendlies on a boat, bomb the entire peninsula, pave it with concrete, then sink the boat."
You're right though, the military spending on Vietnam was huge.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Vietnam is a prime example of the stupidity of fighting a limited war. We could have won if we had hit them hard early. Our leaders lacked the political will to fight total war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
Thrawn---I didn't live in that era either, but I find it very interesting to see the military mistakes and our culture begin to slide into anarchy before we stopped it.
I think the Vietnamese there knew the land too well and, I think, even today, still are/were the ultimate masters of guerrilla war. The fact that they could "beat", or at least make a stalemate with the most powerful nation in the world is quite a feat.
Yes, more bombs were dropped on Vietnam in one year (I think) than in all of WW2. And most of these bombs proved useless. THe classic example is where an American bomb destroyed a bridge, only to find the next day that Vietnamese peasents had built one out of sandbags.
I also find their tunnel system there to be amazing. Wasn't it 2 million miles long or something? Really an ingenious way to make guerrilla tactics all that more effective.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
"Since I'm new?"
Has there been a thread about this before? If yes, I'm quite sorry, don't mean to rehash an old thread. I was going to post this at CFC, then here, but that site is down, so I decided to reverse the order. Sorry, but was this even directed at me? If not, sorry...
The question I ask myself is WHETHER we actually wanted to win. I think that war made us realize something---we should only fight when victory is guarenteed, and it is not our mission to battle communism on all fronts. You may throw Grenada and those things at me, but those were VERY short wars.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
leftover_crack
|
|
thrawn are you mocking captain Space with your avatar!???
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
*sigh*
I thought I had a good idea...oh well
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
Acually, Ho Chi Min originally came to the US & asked if Vietnam could become a US territory, & than the US would help build up the infrastucture. Unfortanitly, the US refused, so Ho Chi when to the commies.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
Don't worry about it. I now know how to fix this dying thread---forget about the military aspect of Vietnam. What do you think would've happend if we decided to not pull out when we did, but to give it another year? If we decided to put a few more troops in rather than start pulling them out? What if the government thought total victory was the only answer, despite rising political outrage?
Would we be in anarchy right now, or would there have been martial law established all over the land to prefent it?
This is why I really wanted to do this thread, I didn't want people to think about the combat---I wanted people to think about the situation at home.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
Yes we would have more dead boys. We would also still have Ohio under marshall law, we would still have the National Guard shooting college students, we would still have constuction workers beating up students while the police looked on, we would still have Columbia being captured by students and the police clubbing every last one of them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cgannon64
|
|
I always thought wars fought over ideals were idiotic. I guess Vietnam could be considered a war fought over ideals---the country had little or nothing we actually wanted, but we just had to stand up to communism, because of our one-minded cold war status. If World War 3 and a nuclear holucaust was fought over Vietnam, a tiny jungle nation technologically unadvanced, it would be saying alot about the human race. We are all very lucky the government listened to its people and cooler heads prevailed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mihai
|
|
Bucharest, Romania
Jan 2000 time: 07:22
|
|
The americans thought that the problem could be solved by military means only, ignoring the succes of British in Malaya. When they tried to gain the local population on their side (the only way to win a guerilla war) it was to late and the effort was subminate be corruption.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|