namelesstavern.net

i'm really interested in more reasons why vietnam was wildly successful

I dont think it was wildly successful but I think we were far from losing it. I'll call that a stalemate at most.

Ok we killed more of them but ...... other than that what was gained in nam ? Heres how i see nam .A lot of my parents generation was sent off to die a lotta people lost faith in the country and what did we have to show for it after the war? Jack shit. In my book thats not widely successful thats a huge fuck up.

Never start a land war in Asia!

spazz wrote:Ok we killed more of them but ...... other than that what was gained in nam ? Heres how i see nam .A lot of my parents generation was sent off to die a lotta people lost faith in the country and what did we have to show for it after the war? Jack shit. In my book thats not widely successful thats a huge fuck up.

Yeah we didn't gain crap in vietnam but I think the massive casualties that we inflicted on the opposing side makes it fair enough to say that we were far from losing, especially like I said since we had no real objective during the whole war it was just to eliminate the enemy. So having that in mind. We were very very far from losing. Oh and the actual death toll of NVA/VC's was 1,100,000 so we didn't kill more...we killed A LOT more 47,378 to 1,100,000 we killed 23x more. Also considering on almost all the operations during the war there was no real objective it was just capture and hold until the enemy attacked back and then recaptured it I think we were very far from losing. I also think the 1,100,000 families of the people that died dont think they were to much on the winning side either.

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

We showed Russia/China that we weren't afraid or unable to project our military power halfway across the globe to "stop the spread of communism."

To be honest I think Vietnam may well have been extremely necessary. Without Vietnam, there may have been something worse. That country got sacrificed for the good of the world.

The one war that I really had wished that the U.S. would have been involved in is in the chinese civil war. If they would have supported chiang kai-shek more china might be a very different place today.

Minrott wrote:We showed Russia/China that we weren't afraid or unable to project our military power halfway across the globe to "stop the spread of communism."

To be honest I think Vietnam may well have been extremely necessary. Without Vietnam, there may have been something worse. That country got sacrificed for the good of the world.

I was just discussing this with someone last week. Some of my friends are nerds like me, this is the shit we talk about.

DESX wrote:especially like I said since we had no real objective during the whole war it was just to eliminate the enemy.

You are incorrect. The US went into Viet Nam to prevent it from falling into communist hand, part of the so called 'domino principle'. To this end, the US failed miserably.

Phlegm wrote:

DESX wrote:especially like I said since we had no real objective during the whole war it was just to eliminate the enemy.

You are incorrect. The US went into Viet Nam to prevent it from falling into communist hand, part of the so called 'domino principle'. To this end, the US failed miserably.

Lol actually no it wasn't....well they say it was but it was more political pressure read some articles or go to an old american history teacher and ask.

for all their technological superiority, the US got the shit kicked out of them

Tikker wrote:for all their technological superiority, the US got the shit kicked out of them

Im still not sure where all this is coming from since the final score was 47,378 to 1,100,000.

DESX wrote:

Phlegm wrote:

DESX wrote:especially like I said since we had no real objective during the whole war it was just to eliminate the enemy.

You are incorrect. The US went into Viet Nam to prevent it from falling into communist hand, part of the so called 'domino principle'. To this end, the US failed miserably.

Lol actually no it wasn't....well they say it was but it was more political pressure read some articles or go to an old american history teacher and ask.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory

DESX wrote:

Tikker wrote:for all their technological superiority, the US got the shit kicked out of them

Im still not sure where all this is coming from since the final score was 47,378 to 1,100,000.

Death count doesn't mean much when you have to have helicopter airlifts from the US embassy when the communists were marching on the capital.

It's just like a football game where one team racked up the yardage but still lost.

Phlegm wrote:

DESX wrote:

Tikker wrote:for all their technological superiority, the US got the shit kicked out of them

Im still not sure where all this is coming from since the final score was 47,378 to 1,100,000.

Death count doesn't mean much when you have to have helicopter airlifts from the US embassy when the communists were marching on the capital.

It's just like a football game where one team racked up the yardage but still lost.

Yes they captured the capital and then we just captured it right back...this is why I am saying that we did not have any real objectives..it was just erradication. Also in this case if you are comparing it to a football game the opposing team had 23x the amount of people but we still whooped their ass 47,378 to 1,100,000. But in this case having a lower score is better I guess you can say.

you know less about war and politics than you know about the xbox and playstation, jeje

DESX wrote:

Phlegm wrote:

DESX wrote:

Tikker wrote:for all their technological superiority, the US got the shit kicked out of them

Im still not sure where all this is coming from since the final score was 47,378 to 1,100,000.

Death count doesn't mean much when you have to have helicopter airlifts from the US embassy when the communists were marching on the capital.

It's just like a football game where one team racked up the yardage but still lost.

Yes they captured the capital and then we just captured it right back.

When did this happened? Last I checked, the communist still control Viet Nam.

One of the reasons the US got involved is that we assassinated the dictator of South Vietnam. The government effectively collapsed without him, and the US had to handle everything. It was ultimately a slow, step-by-step process that got us involved, and there were multiple issues involved (beyond the domino theory, there was US prestige, promises to the french, etc. etc.)

Actually, Ho Chi Min first went to the US asking for backing, before he went to China/Russia, and we turned him down. If the US had backed him, would've been no Vietnam war.

You're flat out wrong about not having real objectives, Desx. We had very definite, very specific strategic objectives. But since it was a fight largely against a civilian insurrection, tactical objectives became much more fluid than any previous war.

And no, once the US left Saigon in 75, we did not take the capitol back. By that point, we were no longer militarily involved, but still had an embassy there. As the North Vietnamese army was closing in, they engaged in an airlift to get all US personnel out, along with a fair number of friendly locals who would otherwise have been murdered by the incoming regime because they helped the americans.

-Arlos

DESX wrote:

Phlegm wrote:

DESX wrote:

Tikker wrote:for all their technological superiority, the US got the shit kicked out of them

Im still not sure where all this is coming from since the final score was 47,378 to 1,100,000.

Death count doesn't mean much when you have to have helicopter airlifts from the US embassy when the communists were marching on the capital.

It's just like a football game where one team racked up the yardage but still lost.

Yes they captured the capital and then we just captured it right back...this is why I am saying that we did not have any real objectives..it was just erradication. Also in this case if you are comparing it to a football game the opposing team had 23x the amount of people but we still whooped their ass 47,378 to 1,100,000. But in this case having a lower score is better I guess you can say.

Perhaps you should read my analogy again, slower this time.

you cant argue with Desx

he's like mini-mindia

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886026076&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

With Iran publicly stating that at least part of the Israeli terms for a cease fire as fair, that part being the release of the captured soldiers, it looks as if the "big brother" support may not be iron clad (at least officially). I suspect Lebanon and by extension Hezbollah may start feeling pressure from it's allies to concede to a prisoner release as terms for a cease fire.

I doubt the removal of Hezbolla forces from withing 20 miles of the Israli border will be accepted easily if at all, but I almost wonder if this was thrown in to give Israel something to comprimise with, and in doing so allow Lebanon or more aptly Hezbolla to save some face.

At the moment however Hezbolla leadership has flat out said no to the proposal, it will be interesting to see what goes on politically. I wonder if and how long that stance is going to last.

arlos wrote:One of the reasons the US got involved is that we assassinated the dictator of South Vietnam.

Are you suggesting that the US orchestrated the assassination through General Minh or that we were simply responsible due to our lack of actions to interfere with the military coup?

I'm saying the US directly organized it.

-Arlos