The US must stay the course in Iraq

[Ramo]

am I wrong for thinking that? give me a link to a source that says otherwise.

Yes, you are wrong. Can you tell me when this democratic election took place? The closest thing to a national election in South Vietnam was a referendum on basically whether to keep the monarchy or be a republic (whether to be ruled by Bao Dai or Diem), and it's questionable whether that was a free election. Afterwards, Diem adamantly refused any free national elections, attacked any existing local election apparatus, tossed political dissidents into concentration camps, etc. It's all well-documented in the Pentagon Papers:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent11.htm

[Sava]

ty Ramo

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by MrFun




You have a ****ed up perception of history.

Perhaps

United States was allied with South Vietnam -- our goal was to prevent communist takeover of South Vietnam. When we withdrew from Vietnam altogether, the communists of North Vietnam, with their South Vietnamese supporters, took over South Vietnam.

Thus, our goal failed and thus . . . . . .


we were defeated.

American troops left Vietnam as of November 30, 1972. The rest were so-called advisors which also left on March 29, 1973.

South Vietnam finally fell April 30, 1975.

The 'goal' was simply dropped.

My agruement here is that US wasn't defeated. There was no Dien Bien Phu for Americans. There was no clear military superiority over the Americans.

Let's suppose someone confronts me somewhere and we fight. Then I realized this' a complete waste of my time and energy and it's going nowhere. I just stop and leave. I wouldn't consider myself defeated. If I was beat up into a bloody pulp, my wallet looted - now that's some serious arse-kicking for me.

I know that we're suppose to patriotically correct to presume that our country is too good to ever lose any war or conflict, but that does not fit with scholarly history.

Pfft, a true patriot wouldn't do this.

If US didn't loose in Vietnam, Germany didn't loose WW1.

Kasier abdicted and fled to Holland. Germany was basically forced to surrender unconditionally and sign the Armistice which was very unfavorable to them. They had no choice in the matter. They even had to sign a clause taking the responsiblity for the war. Here's some of terms they had to agree to... http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/armistice.html

Certainly didn't look like a withdrawal or a victory to me.

Either did this: Treaty of Versailles. You're welcome to check this out at http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/versailles.htm

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DataAeolus

American troops left Vietnam as of November 30, 1972. The rest were so-called advisors which also left on March 29, 1973.

South Vietnam finally fell April 30, 1975.

The 'goal' was simply dropped.

My agruement here is that US wasn't defeated. There was no Dien Bien Phu for Americans. There was no clear military superiority over the Americans.

Let's suppose someone confronts me somewhere and we fight. Then I realized this' a complete waste of my time and energy and it's going nowhere. I just stop and leave. I wouldn't consider myself defeated. If I was beat up into a bloody pulp, my wallet looted - now that's some serious arse-kicking for me.
[/url]

MAN -- give me whatever your smoking or snorting!

First of all the North Vienamese had a superior military strategy along with tactics. They employed an effective combination of guerrilla warfare with conventional warfare. This dualism allowed North Vietnamese to attack American and South Vietnamese forces with guerrilla forces when the commies felt they were at a great disadvantage in conventional warfare terms. THEN, when they correctly or incorrectly believed they were strong enough, they would employ their more conventional forces.

This is what a number of American military leaders failed to grasp at that time, but we still stuck to nearly exclusive conventional strategy of overkill in terms of civilian casualties and material destruction that failed to even defeat the enemy.


As for your thug fight analogy.

When you retreat with a minimum loss or a greater loss, it doesn't matter -- you lost by opting out of the fight that someone else initiated -- you backed away and gave them ground.

[Alexander's Horse]

If you followed this preposterous neocon logic about staying the US would still be in Vietnam.

It seems me a clear admission of policy failure.

If a policy fails, you change it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
First of all the North Vienamese had a superior military strategy along with tactics.

The guerrilla forces or the Army? Because you'll get two different answers based on your response.

[MrFun]

DD -- the North Vietnamese had a superior strategy in that they effectively utilized a combination of guerrilla and conventional forces.

It seemed that the guerrilla forces was North Vietnam's strongest asset, considering that North Vietnam utilized political propaganda in whatever villages the guerrillas operated in.

[DinoDoc]

The guerrillas were destroyed as an effective fighting force after the 68 Tet Offensive.

[MrFun]

But even with the Tet Offensive, and the fact that the North Vietnamese suffered huge losses, they still won politically.

But yes, in the pure military sense, Tet was a disaster for North Vietnam, but in spite of that, they achieved their political goal.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The guerrillas were destroyed as an effective fighting force after the 68 Tet Offensive.

So they replaced the vc with nva regulars. Your point?

[DinoDoc]

That they seemed to be better led. I can't recal any military disasters on that scale coming from their leadership.

[Alexander's Horse]

hmmm, the tet offensive was ordered by Hanoi - it was probably the most successful operation of the war.

[DinoDoc]

The English troll in the other thread is more interesting.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The English troll in the other thread is more interesting.

It's true. The tet offensive turned American public against the war. It was the beginning of the end.

[POTUS]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's true. The tet offensive turned American public against the war. It was the beginning of the end.

Yeah, but at what cost?

The VC was effectively destroyed, and the (relatively) small NVA was forced to confront a much better army. Then, that army got scared and ran away.