Vietnam: We Could Have Won?

[Atlantians]

Double post.

 

[Atlantians]

So I guess by your reasoning, Atlantians, the British successfully put down the American revolution militarily but were undermined by the French and the unwillingness of parliament to continue sending troops and support.

The British retreated from American soil in a defeat by the French and us.
The British could have one but were lacking support and money.

Vietnam was a different case. We did win.
We then pulled out and 2 years later North Vietnam got wise and invaded the underfunded South Vietnamese

There were no American combat troops on South Vietnamese soil when North Vietnam invaded.

We won.

The South Vietnamese lost because the Senate of their ally the United States refused to fund them.

And the Germans won WWI militarily but were stabbed in the back by the war college. (Many Germans actually believed that.)

The Germans didn't win or lose.
It was a stalemate that the Germans got the short end of the stick on because they would not have won a war of attrition.

And the Confederates won the Civil war militarily but failed to receive support from France and England.

The Confederates lost and the South was forced to reintegrate with the North.

And this is where the contradictions become apparent.

No contradiction. The war was a tactical victory and a political failure.

My point in the thread was to debunk the notion that our military lost.
They won.
South Vietnam lost after we pulled out.
Which was because of the Senate's refusal to support our ally.

The aims of the war were to destroy the enemy and to set up a new status quo that was to the liking of the American government.

Clearly the first aim was not satisfied. How does an enemy that is completely destroyed miraculously resurrect itself and take power? The fact is that the North Vietnamese were not militarily defeated. They were able to withstand the attacks that America and its allies directed against it.
They waited their time, knowing that the way the American military was fighting was not going to defeat them. They withstood for over a decade and they didn't look like being destroyed any time soon. That is why, when the Americans left, they were able to take control. If they were destroyed, they wouldn't have taken control.

Two year difference. There was a two year difference between when we pulled out and when they invaded.
They were also being supported heavily by Russia.

You can try to create an American version of the dolchstosslegende, but it just comes off as a pretty desperate attempt to validate what was really just a waste of time, resources and lives. The fact that within a single post you aren't able to create a consistent narrative to back up your position is pretty clear evidence that it isn't a really very convincing at all.

Consistent narrative:
Soviet Russia is gaining ground around the world.
North Vietnam is heading Communist and South Vietnam is not, but may swing Communist.
We enter and support the non-Communists.
We fight for one and a half decades in a war of attrition where our military performs admirably.
We lose support at home.
On the battlefield we have achieved complete tactical superiority in every sense and win every major engagement.
At home it is belittled and America is derided.
The political swing tilts left and the war is opposed by those in power.
In spite of military control of the battlefield, we are forced to withdraw.
We had trained a capable South Vietnamese force and left them in control.
A year later, we cut funding which prevented their military from remaining capable.
A year later the North Vietnamese with much Russian support invaded and destroyed South Vietnam.

This was not a military defeat. This was a military victory on our part.
Defeat was then snatched from the Jaws of victory.

I was entirely consistent.

 

[mpok1519]

i hate this thread. lol

anything about destroying, or making something submit to will or power....

it just makes me wonder....

are more people more willing to live and let live or live and let die?

 

[Gracchus]

The British retreated from American soil in a defeat by the French and us.
The British could have one but were lacking support and money.

Nations are defeated in war at least as often by flat purses as by superior armies.

Vietnam was a different case. We did win.
We then pulled out and 2 years later North Vietnam got wise and invaded the underfunded South Vietnamese

We won WHAT? What did we get out of the war but getting out of it?

We pulled out because the politicians knew that they wouldn't get re-elected. And they feared that they would lose office because the American people had come to question the justice, the necessity and the failure to win victory even after so much time, expense, and bloodshed.

There were no American combat troops on South Vietnamese soil when North Vietnam invaded.

We won.

The Americans pulled out because the American people were tired of endless, pointless war.

The South Vietnamese lost because the Senate of their ally the United States refused to fund them.

The Senate admitted defeat.

The Germans didn't win or lose.
It was a stalemate that the Germans got the short end of the stick on because they would not have won a war of attrition.

So they surrendered and were forced to accept ruinous terms. In other words, they lost, and they knew it.

The Confederates lost and the South was forced to reintegrate with the North.

But that was only because France and England failed to support the South. And that was because, in spite of the cotton embargo imposed by the Confederacy, the even British mill-hands opposed slavery.

No contradiction. The war was a tactical victory and a political failure.

The key word, and the operative word, is failure.

My point in the thread was to debunk the notion that our military lost.

They won.

I thought your point was that they weren't allowed to win.

In any case, they were pulled out after nearly fifteen years because they had failed to win.

South Vietnam lost after we pulled out.
Which was because of the Senate's refusal to support our ally.

An ally? Or a colonial puppet regime?

Two year difference. There was a two year difference between when we pulled out and when they invaded.
They were also being supported heavily by Russia.

In other words, two years after we conceded defeat. The Vietnamese had allies. No one was willing to support the repressive, corrupt regime that the US had originally installed and financed.

Consistent narrative:
Soviet Russia is gaining ground around the world.

And ruining their economy in the process.

North Vietnam is heading Communist and South Vietnam is not, but may swing Communist.

Everyone who met Ho Chi Min agreed he was a nationalist first and a communist second.

We enter and support the non-Communists.

In fact we polarized the country so that the Vietnamese were forced to choose between supporting foreign occupation and communism. That is why, at last, it only took two days to overrun the south.

We fight for one and a half decades in a war of attrition where our military performs admirably.

With overwhelming fire power and air superiority, we could not force a military victory in fifteen years.

We lose support at home.

The public sensed the war was lost, and the politicians had to respond or risk losing their jobs.

On the battlefield we have achieved complete tactical superiority in every sense and win every major engagement.

And fail to win the war.

At home it is belittled and America is derided.

At home the war is opposed and the politicians derided.

The political swing tilts left and the war is opposed by those in power.

Those in power will oppose anything that threatens their power.

In spite of military control of the battlefield, we are forced to withdraw.

The whole country was the battlefield, north and south. And wherever our troops were not concentrated in defensive positions, the Vietnamese were in control.

We had trained a capable South Vietnamese force and left them in control.

It took two days for the Vietnamese army to overrun the country after it began its final assault. How capable was the ARVN? They threw down their weapons and headed back to their families.

A year later, we cut funding which prevented their military from remaining capable.
A year later the North Vietnamese with much Russian support invaded and destroyed South Vietnam.

There never was, in the mind of most Vietnamese a North Viet Nam and a South Viet Nam. There was always only one country, part of which was occupied by a foreign invader.

It has always been my understanding that they had some Chinese help and not Russian. In any case, even the Chinese after two thousand years of trying, had finally given up trying to assimilate Viet Nam.

This was not a military defeat. This was a military victory on our part.
Defeat was then snatched from the Jaws of victory.

In war, victory is what matters. It matters little whether it comes by crushing your foes, by snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, by destroying their will to win, by exhausting their economy, or by bringing world opinion against them. The Vietnamese won.

Military defeat or not, it was a defeat. The war was unjust, unecessary, and useless. Nothing good came of it but its end.

I was entirely consistent.

Consistently contradicting yourself. Consistently jingoistic. Consistently in denial of the obvious fact that we did not achieve our war aim: We did not keep Viet Nam divided, and we did not keep the communists from taking over. (I say "we" advisedly. I quit the Army after seven years because I did not believe in that war, and I no longer believe in the righteousness of my own country. Wars are almost always started by men with big bank accounts who sit behind desks.)

We who marched and protested against the war won by helping to get peace. The Vietnamese won by driving out the foreign troops, and the colonial puppet government.

The fifty thousand US troops who died there and the at least five hundred thousand (or up to two million) Vietnamese who died also lost. Then of course there were the uncounted Cambodians and Laotions who also lost: their lives.

Keep posting. You are getting farther and farther up de longest river in Africa.

Your profile says you are twenty years old, Atlantians. I am sixty-five. I lived through it. I watched it happen. I read about it every day in the newspapers, including "Star and Stripes". I saw police surround and beat protesters with clubs. I watched the shooting of students at Kent State. I don't know where you got your information.

 

[mpok1519]

there are no winners in war.

 

[Atlantians]

I think we have been talking past eachother a bit.

Let me again define my terms:
Tactically speaking, the war was a victory in the sense that we lost no battles, we had secured South Vietnam from invasion as long as we were there and trained their military to handle it when we left along with giving them large amounts of our equipment. This was in spite of being forced to fight with their hands behind their backs .

Politically speaking it was a failure and a loss. We pulled out and cut funding even though it would have been a success if we continued funding.
That has to be again highlighted: We cut funding. If we had continued funding South Vietnam past '74, they would have been able to stand against North Vietnam unless Russia began helping them more directly.
This would also have hastened the collapse of Russia because they would be trying to equal our support to Vietnam.

Tactical Victory =/= long term political victory.
Political failure = long term failure.

Everyone who met Ho Chi Min agreed he was a nationalist first and a communist second.

Yes, and our decision in the early days to not help Ho Chi Min establish a Democracy in opposition to the French will always be to me a huge mistake.

Consistently jingoistic. Consistently in denial of the obvious fact that we did not achieve our war aim: We did not keep Viet Nam divided, and we did not keep the communists from taking over.

You are right, we didn't achieve the goals of the war. The military achieved its tactical goals.
We didn't achieve those goals because we cut funding after our military left Vietnam.

That is why I am making a distinction between the military and the political sides of the war.
The war was lost two years after we were no longer fighting in Vietnam.

I find your accusation of Jingoism rather ironic, however.
I would not consider myself strongly nationalistic or patriotic.
I am a Christian first, Me as a person Second. Irish (heritage) Third, and American fourth.
I appreciate and love America and think it has been a great force of good in the world overall,
but I would certainly not consider myself particularly patriotic or nationalistic.
Nationalism has caused quite a few problems in the last five centuries.

I do love the truth and a do love the military, however.
I am more concerned that they are accurately remembered and honoured and truth is upheld than anything else.

Your profile says you are twenty years old, Atlantians. I am sixty-five. I lived through it. I watched it happen. I read about it every day in the newspapers, including "Star and Stripes".

Yeah. You got your information from the media.

I saw police surround and beat protesters with clubs. I watched the shooting of students at Kent State.

Appeal to emotion not fact.
Those incidents had nothing to do with the tactical situation in Vietnam.

I don't know where you got your information.

I already said.
The testimony of my father and mother. My father was a Chief Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot in Vietnam for three tours in the 101st Airborne.
My mother was also an Army pilot stateside and knew many many people who actually fought over there.
My mentor was a Green Beret during the mid and late 60s in Vietnam.

As a History major I have compared their words to the records and the propaganda from the words of the liberal 'peacenicks' like yourself.

I have first hand testimony from reliable sources on the ground in different sectors as well as the historical reality of the war.

 

[mpok1519]

Abbie Hoffman was right about the fascist pigs though.

the entire "red scare" was ridiculous looking back on it all. just apart of another arms race towards the nuclear holocaust of humanity, one political victory at a time!

 

[mpok1519]

The testimony of my father and mother. My father was a Chief Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot in Vietnam for three tours in the 101st Airborne.
My mother was also an Army pilot stateside and knew many many people who actually fought over there.
My mentor was a Green Beret during the mid and late 60s in Vietnam.

As a History major I have compared their words to the records and the propaganda from the words of the liberal 'peacenicks' like yourself.

I have first hand testimony from reliable sources on the ground in different sectors as well as the historical reality of the war.

LBJ lied to soldiers to.

THEN he lied to the media once soldiers were thrown into action. Your parents just got the lies first, in the form of orders.

 

[Atlantians]

LBJ lied to soldiers to.

THEN he lied to the media once soldiers were thrown into action. Your parents just got the lies first, in the form of orders.

Bull.
My mom was after LJB and was stateside anyway. Her testimony is from so many dozens of friends who fought.
My father took three tours which also places him as having experience during and after LBJ.
If what you said was true, that would mitigate against it.
And the fact that my father had first hand experience and my mentor was a Green Beret and was training South Vietnamese in the jungles and also had first hand information.

 

[mpok1519]

LBJ handed the orders down that got handed down again.

It was all this giant propoganda scheme that really had nothing to do with American safety and democracy.

and people died.

all for nothing.

---------------

nothing against your family

 

[Atlantians]

LBJ handed the orders down that got handed down again.

It was all this giant propoganda scheme that really had nothing to do with American safety and democracy.

and people died.

all for nothing.

---------------

nothing against your family

You give a rather 'convenient' response.

I really have no reason to believe you.
I have also seen nothing to indicate your accuracy.

My father also got rather high up in the food chain, as did my mentor.
My mom, not so much.

Not to mention they were all actually there and and that they had plenty of friends who also all saw the facts on the ground as they were from many angles.

Them > You.

 

[Gracchus]

Politically speaking it was a failure and a loss. We pulled out and cut funding even though it would have been a success if we continued funding.

You can make that assertion, but you cannot demonstrate it to be true. The Chinese "supported" their invasions of Viet Nam over a period of two thousand years and did not succeed in subduing the Vietnamese.


How long would we have had to continuing to support our (unelected) puppet regime, before they became self-sufficient.

That has to be again highlighted: We cut funding. If we had continued funding South Vietnam past '74, they would have been able to stand against North Vietnam unless Russia began helping them more directly.
This would also have hastened the collapse of Russia because they would be trying to equal our support to Vietnam.

Tactical Victory =/= long term political victory.
Political failure = long term failure.

And, as I pointed out earlier, Pyrrhus of Epirus, also achieved tactical victory.

Yes, and our decision in the early days to not help Ho Chi Min establish a Democracy in opposition to the French will always be to me a huge mistake.

We made that kind of mistake more than once. We should have also aided Cuba after Castro threw out Batista.

You are right, we didn't achieve the goals of the war. The military achieved its tactical goals.

But it failed to acheive its strategic goals.

We didn't achieve those goals because we cut funding after our military left Vietnam.

Or maybe, we didn't acheive those goals because the Vietnamese people would not support a puppet regime, even if we had propped it up for the next two thousand years.

That is why I am making a distinction between the military and the political sides of the war.
The war was lost two years after we were no longer fighting in Vietnam.

You are making the distinction because you wish to claim the victory of a lost cause. You claim victory because you "love the military". (I love it the same way I love a Port-a-potty: Sometimes it's a stinking necessity, and the more you resort to it, the worse it stinks.)

I do love the truth and a do love the military, however.
I am more concerned that they are accurately remembered and honoured and truth is upheld than anything else.

I remember those who served. I served with them. A soldier can be no more honorable than the cause he fight for.



"Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."

• Translation: To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.

--- Tacitus De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae, Book 1, Paragraph 21

Yeah. You got your information from the media.

Yeah, liberal rags like "Stars and Stripes" and the LA Times, among others. And Armed Forces Radio Network, as well as ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Appeal to emotion not fact.
Those incidents had nothing to do with the tactical situation in Vietnam.

Emotions play a part in war. Americans at home lost faith in the war. So did most of the troops in the field, US and ARVN.

I already said.
The testimony of my father and mother. My father was a Chief Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot in Vietnam for three tours in the 101st Airborne.
My mother was also an Army pilot stateside and knew many many people who actually fought over there.
My mentor was a Green Beret during the mid and late 60s in Vietnam.

And I was in the Army 61-67. I didn't have to rely on anecdotes, although I heard many.

As a History major I have compared their words to the records and the propaganda from the words of the liberal 'peacenicks' like yourself.

Which records did you consult? The official body counts?

I am certainly a liberal peacenik, a socialist, and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, an American, and a veteran. So what?

What do you think of this tactical victory, as a "Christian first"?

I have first hand testimony from reliable sources on the ground in different sectors as well as the historical reality of the war.

Have you read the testimony of the "Viet Nam Veterans Against the War"?

 

[mpok1519]

You give a rather 'convenient' response.

I really have no reason to believe you.
I have also seen nothing to indicate your accuracy.

My father also got rather high up in the food chain, as did my mentor.
My mom, not so much.

Not to mention they were all actually there and and that they had plenty of friends who also all saw the facts on the ground as they were from many angles.

Them > You.

yah. They have alot of experience in one the worst blunders in American history. I have the experience of having to deal with post-generational after-math of such a horrible time in our history; I have to live in the excrement of result from this war. AND the war we're currently in.

And the war still had absolutely nothing to do with American safety. It might as well have been a business investment opportunity for bullet manufacturers.

 

[Atlantians]

You can make that assertion, but you cannot demonstrate it to be true. The Chinese "supported" their invasions of Viet Nam over a period of two thousand years and did not succeed in subduing the Vietnamese.

We were not 'subduing' the Vietnamese.
We were defending South Vietnam from Communism.
We did and are still doing the same in Korea,

How long would we have had to continuing to support our (unelected) puppet regime, before they became self-sufficient.

Define self-sufficient.
We support Israel. We support Palau.
We supported and support Japan.
We support Korea as well.
Are they all not self-sufficient by your definition?

And, as I pointed out earlier, Pyrrhus of Epirus, also achieved tactical victory.

Yes, but barely.
He sustained staggering losses and was incapable of continuing.

We sustained few loses, relatively speaking, and were easily militarily capable of maintaining the defense of South Vietnam just as we have South Korea.

We made that kind of mistake more than once. We should have also aided Cuba after Castro threw out Batista.

Castro was a Communist.
And Batista was our ally.
Poor choice in allies, maybe.

But it failed to acheive its strategic goals.

The military achieved its goals as long as it was in the country.
It can't be held responsible for failures they had no hand in opposing.

Or maybe, we didn't acheive those goals because the Vietnamese people would not support a puppet regime, even if we had propped it up for the next two thousand years.

South Vietnam did not want to be under the thumb of Communism.

You are making the distinction because you wish to claim the victory of a lost cause.

No, I want to be correct and uphold what actually happened.

You claim victory because you "love the military".

I claim victory because the military gained victory as long as they were allowed to actually be there and fight.

I am concerned that the memory of the war is accurate because I love the military. Get your accusation accurate please.

(I love it the same way I love a Port-a-potty: Sometimes it's a stinking necessity, and the more you resort to it, the worse it stinks.)

This is a shameful and horribly disrespectful statement on your part.

I remember those who served. I served with them. A soldier can be no more honorable than the cause he fight for.

They fought for the freedom of South Vietnam from Communist oppression.

Yeah, liberal rags like "Stars and Stripes" and the LA Times, among others. And Armed Forces Radio Network, as well as ABC, CBS, and NBC.

I said "the media". Not "the liberal media".

The media is never truly accurate.

But more importantly, the fact that you listened to them does not mean you are representing what they said accurately now anyway.

Emotions play a part in war. Americans at home lost faith in the war. So did most of the troops in the field, US and ARVN.

The troops lost faith in the Government. Not the war per se and certainly not the people they were fighting with among the ARVN.

And I was in the Army 61-67. I didn't have to rely on anecdotes, although I heard many.

Where were you assigned?
What was your rank and position?

Which records did you consult? The official body counts?

I am certainly a liberal peacenik, a socialist, and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, an American, and a veteran. So what?

What do you think of this tactical victory, as a "Christian first"?

First, that link goes nowhere.
I had to fix it myself. Just an FYI.

That was a tragedy. A true tragedy. 500 innocents slaughtered.
And the shameful handling by Nixon was despicable.
WO1 High Thompson was a great hero that day.

But, if you want to compare massacres if civilians:
Massacre at Hu? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were between 3,000 and 6,000 dead.
Civilians mostly, by the North Vietnamese Army.

yah. They have alot of experience in one the worst blunders in American history. I have the experience of having to deal with post-generational after-math of such a horrible time in our history; I have to live in the excrement of result from this war. AND the war we're currently in.

How is this a response to what I just said?
Pure propaganda.

And the war still had absolutely nothing to do with American safety. It might as well have been a business investment opportunity for bullet manufacturers.

It had everything to do with American safety.
Fight the Communists somewhere where they will overextend their resources.
We won the Cold War because of that strategy.

 

[mpok1519]

How is this a response to what I just said?
Pure propaganda.

Take it as you want. I can't stop you.

It had everything to do with American safety.
Fight the Communists somewhere where they will overextend their resources.
We won the Cold War because of that strategy.

Now THATS propoganda. lol the cold war was just in the heads of those who hated communism. It was just more fear, ignorance and violent tendencies as a result of that fear and ignorance. Pure evil in its most basic and infantile form; violent, ignorant and blind hate and misunderstanding. lol I mean, cmon. You dont actually believe all the bull fed to you by the shovel-loads do you?

Vietnam was a disgrace. Abbie Hoffman was right; it was just a tool of facist pigs for political reasons. Since most of Americans at the time were so blissfully ignorant as to the going-ons in the world, communism was a four-letter word that meant one thing; hell. And ANY politician who would champion that ignorance could secure his place within office at the hands of millions of blind voters. Any politician who can take the peoples' blind fear and ambitions could sway people into believing "The communists will win the cold war unless we bomb this little south east asian country with napalm. Forget Russia or China. They're too big." lol

I mean, kids actually had to die for this crap. And it sickens me.

The red scare was just a political tool bro; and you have direct contact with that tool. But, the thing is, the tool was using the people. Like a puppet who actually pulls the strings of the marrionette hobbyist.

 

[Gracchus]

We were not 'subduing' the Vietnamese.
We were defending South Vietnam from Communism.

And when we called off the referendum on re-unification after the French left, what were we defending?

We did and are still doing the same in Korea,

North Korea is an autocratic monarchy, if the media are anywhere near accurate. Of course, you don't believe the media, so perhaps they are a benevolent socialist paradise.

Define self-sufficient.

Independent. Able to survive without outside support.

We support Israel. We support Palau.
We supported and support Japan.
We support Korea as well.
Are they all not self-sufficient by your definition?

They are not self-sufficient by any reasonable definition.

Yes, but barely.
He sustained staggering losses and was incapable of continuing.

And American losses in Viet Nam were staggering when compared to the results obtained. For all the money and troops we poured in we got a million or more dead Vietnamese and fifty thousand dead GI's, not to mention the maimed and mutilated to spend the rest of their lives practicing stump care, rolling around in wheelchairs, or vegetating in the back rooms of veterans' hospitals.

We paid a huge price, in the field and at home, for nothing but destruction and misery.

We sustained few loses, relatively speaking, and were easily militarily capable of maintaining the defense of South Vietnam just as we have South Korea.

Koreans roll with the punches and keep their heads down. The Vietnamese never stop punching back.

Castro was a Communist.
And Batista was our ally.
Poor choice in allies, maybe.

It's getting to be a habit.

The military achieved its goals as long as it was in the country.

What were its goals? Pacification didn't work. "Strategic hamlets" (concentration camps) didn't work. Interdiction didn't work. Control of the field lasted until American troops withdrew, and then reverted to the Vietnamese.

It can't be held responsible for failures they had no hand in opposing.

I never said the military was responsible.

South Vietnam did not want to be under the thumb of Communism.

But they wanted even less to be under the thumb of a foreign occupying army.

I claim victory because the military gained victory as long as they were allowed to actually be there and fight.

You have your claim, but it doesn't pan out.

I am concerned that the memory of the war is accurate because I love the military. Get your accusation accurate please.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." --- KJV Matthew 5:9

What then shall we say of the warmakers, and whose children are they?

Clue: "War is all hell." --- William T. Sherman

(I love it the same way I love a Port-a-potty: Sometimes it's a stinking necessity, and the more you resort to it, the worse it stinks.)

This is a shameful and horribly disrespectful statement on your part.

I don't have much respect for invaders. I am not ashamed of it.

I might add, that it continues to stink, but after you have lived with it a while, you cease to notice the smell.

They fought for the freedom of South Vietnam from Communist oppression.

"South Viet Nam" was a political fiction imposed by foreigners. North and south, there was and is only one Viet Nam.

I said "the media". Not "the liberal media".

The media is never truly accurate.

Perhaps not. But unless "Stars and Stripes" was part of a media conspiracy, we can, at least, go with the consensus until it is refuted.

But more importantly, the fact that you listened to them does not mean you are representing what they said accurately now anyway.

Except of course the media leaves a record. There is too much documentation to stuff down the memory hole.

The troops lost faith in the Government. Not the war per se and certainly not the people they were fighting with among the ARVN.

Right. They lost faith in the government but not its basic policies.

Where were you assigned?
What was your rank and position?

Irrelevant. But since I hold that curiousity should be respected when possible, I will answer that.

On my first hitch, I was assigned to the Armored Cavalry in Germany, about a half-hours drive by tank from the Czech border. I was assigned at the end to an experimental tactical nuke squad, and the squadron CBR monitoring control team. (We had the highest proficiency test scores in the Seventh Corps.) I made E-4 in an artillery fire direction center MOS.

During the time I was stationed there, the wall went up, the Cuban missile crisis occurred and Kennedy was assasinated. There were also a couple of real alerts that never got into the press.

On my second hitch, I was for a time assigned as an instructor at the US Army Security Agency Training Center and School, where I made E-5. Later, I was assigned to HQ USASA Europe, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. I had been put in for E-6 but that is when I decided to get out.

That (the My Lai massacre) was a tragedy. A true tragedy. 500 innocents slaughtered.
And the shameful handling by Nixon was despicable.
WO1 High Thompson was a great hero that day.

But, if you want to compare massacres if civilians:
Massacre at Hu? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were between 3,000 and 6,000 dead.
Civilians mostly, by the North Vietnamese Army.

Hence the port-a-potty analogy. War corrupts those who wage it. Both sides. Everyone.

 

[Atlantians]

And when we called off the referendum on re-unification after the French left, what were we defending?

The South from a Communist takeover.

North Korea is an autocratic monarchy, if the media are anywhere near accurate. Of course, you don't believe the media, so perhaps they are a benevolent socialist paradise.

What era are you talking about?

Independent. Able to survive without outside support.

Ok, then I do not believe that was ever our goal.

We wanted them to get to the point where they didn't need that much of our direct military support, but we always anticipated having to out fund Russia or China, depending on who supported the NVA.

They are not self-sufficient by any reasonable definition.

By your definition, you are correct.

I was using a different definition.

We are on the same page on that issue, now, I believe.

And American losses in Viet Nam were staggering when compared to the results obtained. For all the money and troops we poured in we got a million or more dead Vietnamese and fifty thousand dead GI's, not to mention the maimed and mutilated to spend the rest of their lives practicing stump care, rolling around in wheelchairs, or vegetating in the back rooms of veterans' hospitals.

We lost 5 times the number of soldiers in 1/4th the time in WWII.
When it comes to these issues I stick to the stacks as a pragmatist.

We inflicted vast casualties upon the enemy Army.

We paid a huge price, in the field and at home, for nothing but destruction and misery.

It would have turned out a lot better had we kept funding South Vietnam after we left in '73.

Koreans roll with the punches and keep their heads down. The Vietnamese never stop punching back.

That is a rather baseless statement.

It's getting to be a habit.

We don't have many choices, really.
Its either: Bad ally... or... worse ally most of the time.

What were its goals? Pacification didn't work. "Strategic hamlets" (concentration camps) didn't work. Interdiction didn't work. Control of the field lasted until American troops withdrew, and then reverted to the Vietnamese.

The Vietnamese were not united.
The South Vietnamese were not supporters of the North.
The control of the Southern fields was firmly in the hands of the South Vietnamese until we cut much of the funding.

The North made several test incursions in late '74 and early '75 before a massive invasion that overwhelmed the underfunded South Vietnamese with terrible moral after being largely abandoned.

I never said the military was responsible.

My entire point in this thread was to say the military won and the politicians lost.
IE: Grasped defeat from the jaws of victory.
The military didn't lose the war. They won their part in it.
After we pulled out the politicians cut funding and thus ended the war in the favour of the North.

But they wanted even less to be under the thumb of a foreign occupying army.

And they were not.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." --- KJV Matthew 5:9

What then shall we say of the warmakers, and whose children are they?

Clue: "War is all hell." --- William T. Sherman

Biblical 'peace' has little to do with a lack of conflict or war.

I don't have much respect for invaders. I am not ashamed of it.

We never 'invaded' South Vietnam.

"South Viet Nam" was a political fiction imposed by foreigners. North and south, there was and is only one Viet Nam.

This is false.

When I was younger my mom almost married a very old friend of hers from the war days. He was a South Vietnamese man.

Like I said, this war is deeply ingrained in my family history.

Perhaps not. But unless "Stars and Stripes" was part of a media conspiracy, we can, at least, go with the consensus until it is refuted.

I never said anything about a conspiracy.
The media is never truly accurate, especially of war issues.

Except of course the media leaves a record. There is too much documentation to stuff down the memory hole.

Please gives some documentation then.

Right. They lost faith in the government but not its basic policies.

Of course not. The policies were largely right.

Irrelevant. But since I hold that curiousity should be respected when possible, I will answer that.

On my first hitch, I was assigned to the Armored Cavalry in Germany, about a half-hours drive by tank from the Czech border. I was assigned at the end to an experimental tactical nuke squad, and the squadron CBR monitoring control team. (We had the highest proficiency test scores in the Seventh Corps.) I made E-4 in an artillery fire direction center MOS.

During the time I was stationed there, the wall went up, the Cuban missile crisis occurred and Kennedy was assasinated. There were also a couple of real alerts that never got into the press.

On my second hitch, I was for a time assigned as an instructor at the US Army Security Agency Training Center and School, where I made E-5. Later, I was assigned to HQ USASA Europe, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. I had been put in for E-6 but that is when I decided to get out.

Ok, you were not assigned to Vietnam as I thought.

In fairness:
My father was an Army 101st Airborne CWO2-3 through his three tours in Vietnam and gained the rank of CWO 4 and then CWO 5 later.
My mother was also an Army helicopter pilot, CWO2, and had many friends including the South Vietnamese fellow I mentioned and a myriad of others who fought on the ground and flew.

My mentor was a Green Beret in Vietnam and, well, you know what they do. They work with the locals and form a fighting force and train them.
In any case, I can't remember his rank specifically but I believe he was at a high enlisted grade. I will have to ask him next time I chat with him.

Hence the port-a-potty analogy. War corrupts those who wage it. Both sides. Everyone.

That analogy is very disrespectful. War is indeed hell, but that is a bad and dishonourable comparison.

 

[Gracchus]

The South from a Communist takeover.

The division of Viet Nam into north and south was a temporary one according to the Geneva Accords. Two years after the French left there was to be a referendum, an election, which, almost all observers agreed would have re-united the country under Ho Chi Mihn, the most respected and prestigious leader north and south of the dividing line.

Ok, then I do not believe that was ever our goal.

So you admit to literally moving the goal post.

We wanted them to get to the point where they didn't need that much of our direct military support, but we always anticipated having to out fund Russia or China, depending on who supported the NVA.

If so, that was not brought to the attention of the American public.

By your definition, you are correct.

I was using a different definition.

What definition was that?

We are on the same page on that issue, now, I believe.

But we disagree about what it says.

We lost 5 times the number of soldiers in 1/4th the time in WWII.

When it comes to these issues I stick to the stacks as a pragmatist.

And in WWII we were fighting Germany and Japan, two major powers, as well as Italy. Viet Nam was never a major power.

We inflicted vast casualties upon the enemy Army.

And even greater casualties on the civilian population.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5j0r4QyZeo&NR=1


You don’t believe newspapers, how about the very words of LBJ and McNamara?

It would have turned out a lot better had we kept funding South Vietnam after we left in '73.

Better for who? The oppressive, corrupt and upopular regime we put into power?
Here is what LBJ had to say:

YouTube - LBJ Admits Murder of Diem

Koreans roll with the punches and keep their heads down. The Vietnamese never stop punching back.

That is a rather baseless statement.

It is based on history. Korea has been under Chinese control for much of its history.

We don't have many choices, really.

Its either: Bad ally... or... worse ally most of the time.

It is so hard to find willing partners to piracy these days.

The Vietnamese were not united.

Because the European powers had divided it at Geneva.

The South Vietnamese were not supporters of the North.

But the were against the corrupt puppet government we left in power.

The control of the Southern fields was firmly in the hands of the South Vietnamese until we cut much of the funding.

The North made several test incursions in late '74 and early '75 before a massive invasion that overwhelmed the underfunded South Vietnamese with terrible moral after being largely abandoned.

The north was in ruins from "Rolling Thunder". They wisely took advantage of the American withdrawal to reorganize and rebuild.

My entire point in this thread was to say the military won and the politicians lost.

IE: Grasped defeat from the jaws of victory.
The military didn't lose the war. They won their part in it.

The military got bloody. They won nothing. They brought away nothing but casualties.

After we pulled out the politicians cut funding and thus ended the war in the favour of the North.

Which is to say, the politicians had to finally recognize defeat.

But they wanted even less to be under the thumb of a foreign occupying army.

And they were not.

But they were under the control of an unelected and oppressive government that had been put in power by a US backed coup.

Biblical 'peace' has little to do with a lack of conflict or war.

Oh goody! You have redefined, "victory", you have redefined "self-sufficient". Now you are redefining "peace".

We never 'invaded' South Vietnam.

We manufactured (or maybe just imagined?) the "Tonkin Gulf Incident" and used it as an excuse to invade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbJLwk-bJaA&NR=1

"South Viet Nam" was a political fiction imposed by foreigners. North and south, there was and is only one Viet Nam.

This is false.

Two thousand years of history testify to the fact. You claim to be a student of history. Look it up.

When I was younger my mom almost married a very old friend of hers from the war days. He was a South Vietnamese man.

My brother married an Okinawan girl. So what?

Like I said, this war is deeply ingrained in my family history.

And I met many folks in Germany, none of whom were Nazis, who said, "Of course, Hitler was a bad man, but he did some good things."

I never said anything about a conspiracy.

The media is never truly accurate, especially of war issues.

I agree that the media is never completely accurate, but "Stars and Stripes" and the "LA Times" put the best face possible on the war and could not quite hide the reality.

Please gives some documentation then.

]
You claim to be the student of history. Check the morgue.

Right. They lost faith in the government but not its basic policies.

Repression, corruption, ... Have you seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PWM9gWR5E
Of course Thich Quang Duc was not Catholic and probably didn’t grow up speaking French. He was, however, a hero to the people of the south. As he burned people came up and prostrated themselves before him. To Madame Nhu, he was "barbecue".

Ok, you were not assigned to Vietnam as I thought.

No. I went where I was sent, but I would have gone to Viet Nam only with the stipulation that I could have chosen which side to which I would lend my support.
I won a GCM, an Expert Rifleman’s badge, two hashmarks and was in line for a four stripes. I had a Top Secret security clearance with access to cryptologic information.

In fairness: ...

In fairness, why don’t you tell us about your military career, not your family’s.

That analogy is very disrespectful. War is indeed hell, but that is a bad and dishonourable comparison.

I don’t respect soldiers. They are sworn to go out and kill on command. They are professional killers.
Sometimes they are necessary. But in Viet Nam we were not defending our own country or our own people. We were defending national pride.
It was an evil war. It is better to lose such a war than to win. I am glad we lost.

(Sorry about the double posted videos. I can't seem to get rid of the duplicates.)




　

 

[Atlantians]

The division of Viet Nam into north and south was a temporary one according to the Geneva Accords. Two years after the French left there was to be a referendum, an election, which, almost all observers agreed would have re-united the country under Ho Chi Mihn, the most respected and prestigious leader north and south of the dividing line.

And a communist.

So you admit to literally moving the goal post.

Hardly.

What definition was that?
But we disagree about what it says.

You believe our goal was to establish Vietnam as a self-sufficient nation.

And in WWII we were fighting Germany and Japan, two major powers, as well as Italy. Viet Nam was never a major power.

And we never invade

And even greater casualties on the civilian population.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5j0r4QyZeo&NR=1

Now I have seen this Documentary at least once.


It is based on history. Korea has been under Chinese control for much of its history.

It is so hard to find willing partners to piracy these days.

Because the European powers had divided it at Geneva.

But the were against the corrupt puppet government we left in power.

The north was in ruins from "Rolling Thunder". They wisely took advantage of the American withdrawal to reorganize and rebuild.

The military got bloody. They won nothing. They brought away nothing but casualties.

Which is to say, the politicians had to finally recognize defeat.

But they were under the control of an unelected and oppressive government that had been put in power by a US backed coup.

Agreed.

Oh goody! You have redefined, "victory", you have redefined "self-sufficient". Now you are redefining "peace".

In a debate, defining your terms is essential.
I defined self-sufficient as being in relation to military and government while only requiring funding. You believed they had to be economically independent and self-sufficient as well.

I was only ever talking about the military and the job they did while they were there as it related to "victory".

I clearly stated early on that the war was not lost by the Military, but buy the politicians who effectively grasped defeat from the jaws of victory.

I agree that the media is never completely accurate, but "Stars and Stripes" and the "LA Times" put the best face possible on the war and could not quite hide the reality.

Please gives some documentation then.]

You claim to be the student of history. Check the morgue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PWM9gWR5E

Of course Thich Quang Duc was not Catholic and probably didn’t grow up speaking French. He was, however, a hero to the people of the south. As he burned people came up and prostrated themselves before him. To Madame Nhu, he was "barbecue".

She could barely speak English.
I doubt she had any idea what barbecue meant other than that it included fire.

No. I went where I was sent, but I would have gone to Viet Nam only with the stipulation that I could have chosen which side to which I would lend my support.

Are you saying you would have fought for the North?

I won a GCM,

A general court martial?

an Expert Rifleman’s badge,

Ok.

two hashmarks and was in line for a four stripes. I had a Top Secret security clearance with access to cryptologic information.

On a completely unrelated note, my mom had an Army buddy with extremely high clearance.
He grew marijuana in his house.
Your mention of security clearance reminded me of that.

In fairness, why don’t you tell us about your military career, not your family’s.

I am looking into joining the Airforce via ROTC, 2-year college route.

I don’t respect soldiers. They are sworn to go out and kill on command. They are professional killers.

(Sorry about the double posted videos. I can't seem to get rid of the duplicates.)

This web site has weird embedded code.

 

[Gracchus]

Then, Atlantians, there is this:

"
In the post-war era, Americans struggled to absorb the lessons of the military intervention.[186] As General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principal architects of the war, noted "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean war, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies... And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."[187][188]
Some have suggested that "the responsibility for the ultimate failure of this policy [America's withdrawal from Vietnam] lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress..."[189] Alternatively, the official history of the United States Army noted that "tactics have often seemed to exist apart from larger issues, strategies, and objectives. Yet in Vietnam the Army experienced tactical success and strategic failure... The... Vietnam War('s)... legacy may be the lesson that unique historical, political, cultural, and social factors always impinge on the military... Success rests not only on military progress but on correctly analyzing the nature of the particular conflict, understanding the enemy's strategy, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of allies. A new humility and a new sophistication may form the best parts of a complex heritage left to the Army by the long, bitter war in Vietnam."[190] U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to President Gerald Ford that "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail."[191] Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."[192]"

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course it is only wikipedia, but a student of history should have no problem checking the citations.