The United States won the Vietnam War

[General Ludd]

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Originally posted by Chris 62
Hmm, a personal attack

a witless moron named Tinky.

what a jackass you are.

I promised myself I wouldn't argue with idiots

You're the only one throwing around insults and making personal attacks, Chris. As usual.

[mactbone]

So, Tingkai, you'd be willing to get all of the benifits of being a citizen of your country, but you wouldn't follow it's precepts? That's like saying, hey, I don't think that stealing is a crime, so when I do it, I shouldn't have to go to jail. You are a citizen of the country, you recieve the benefits of that, and you should abide by the laws of that country.

Don't know if it was similar in the Vietnam conflict, but my grandpa joined the army during the Korean war because he figured he'd be drafted anyway and wanted to pick which service he was in. He said that if you were a smartass or got into trouble a lot, you were shipped out. So he kept a low profile and did what he was told and never had to go.

[Eroberer]

Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
Northern Alliance is what are the Afghans in this present action going on. Not the Vietnam war. The regular standard North Vietnamese army were known as NVA. Viet Cong were also not limited as a Southern Army made of South Vietnamese.

They were basically a guerilla outfit consisting of Northern Vietnamese and Southern Vietnamese sympathizers to the Northern cause. They fought all over the region including outside of their own borders.

There have been lots of Northern Alliances over the years. =)

My point was that lots of people thought the Viet Cong was the official, government's army of the North, 'cus that was a great deal of who we were fighting. I'm pretty sure I read that they were primarily South Vietnamese.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Hmm, a personal attack, from a witless moron named Tinky.
How predictable.

I said no names, you just assumed it, again confirming what a jackass you are.

Chris: I never said you were insulting me. What I said was that your insults are predictable. Any time there is a discussion and you disagree with someone, your standard response is to throw out some asinine childhood insult. The only thing you achieve is to make yourself look ridiculous. You're not impressing anyone and you're certainly not contributing to this discussion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

innocent civilians and combatants defending their nation.

This is your problem, you think all the civilians were harmless and innocent (when they undoubtably weren't), and that the Vietnamese that fought were all noble (ignoring the torture they committed on those South Vietnamese that weren't in good with the Communists).

When civilians have been killing you, and aren't as innocent as you thought they might have been, yeah, I can see how you might kill a few of them and believe you were saving you skin. You might even be right to do so.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MacTBone
So, Tingkai, you'd be willing to get all of the benifits of being a citizen of your country, but you wouldn't follow it's precepts? That's like saying, hey, I don't think that stealing is a crime, so when I do it, I shouldn't have to go to jail. You are a citizen of the country, you recieve the benefits of that, and you should abide by the laws of that country.

I would argue that in a democratic society, people must take responsibility for their government's decision. Either you agree with the government and support it, or you disagree and try to change things, even if that means breaking the law, but only if the law being broken is unjust. Civil disodedience in other words.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I would argue that in a democratic society, people must take responsibility for their government's decision. Either you agree with the government and support it, or you disagree and try to change things, even if that means breaking the law, but only if the law being broken is unjust. Civil disodedience in other words.

Why just in a democratic society? Why not in a dictatorship? Why aren't you holding the people of Afghanistan responsible for the Taliban's crimes because they 'supported it' by not rebelling?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

innocent civilians and combatants defending their nation.

This is your problem, you think all the civilians were harmless and innocent (when they undoubtably weren't), and that the Vietnamese that fought were all noble (ignoring the torture they committed on those South Vietnamese that weren't in good with the Communists).

When civilians have been killing you, and aren't as innocent as you thought they might have been, yeah, I can see how you might kill a few of them and believe you were saving you skin. You might even be right to do so.

I never said all civilians were harmless. That's why I refer to innocent civilians as oppose to all civilians.

I agree that many civilians were actually combatants, but cettainly you must accept that many civilians who were killed posed no threat. They were just innocent civilians

I think we can agree that the American troops in Vietnam were in a difficult situation and one that I hope none of us ever experience.

At the same time, it cannot be denied that millions of innocent civilians in Vietnam were killed by Americans as a result of misguided American foreign policy.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Why just in a democratic society? Why not in a dictatorship? Why aren't you holding the people of Afghanistan responsible for the Taliban's crimes because they 'supported it' by not rebelling?

Because in a democratic society, such as the United States, civil disobedience does not result in the death penalty. It does not result in the torture and killing of your family.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by kolpo
Just the idea that the one with least deads wins a war is a joke, the Russians losts extremely many people in WWII but they ended up as the biggest winner of it(they gained whole eastern Europe as pet).

Yes, Eastern Europe was/is such a prize.

Meanwhile, the poor-widdle US had to content itself with taking over the British and Japanese Empires. Man, we really lost that war big, didn't we?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
The U.S. military could have continued fighting that war forever.

Part of the reason the US had to end the war was because the grunts were becoming increasingly political and unruly. Mutinies and fraggins were becoming more common. It was only a matter of time before there was a military revolt, which could have coincided a political revolt. You all would be commies today if that had happened.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Viper2263
Technically Vietnam was not war. It was a "peace keeping action.

If it walks like a duck . . .

Congress never declared war, therefore the U.S. economy never shifted gears.

Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The Constitution does not require formal declarations of war. All it says is that Congress had the sole authority to declare war. That is what the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution did. It authorized the President to wage war in Vietnam and appropriated the money to do so.

The economy did not need to shift gears. We have never left wartime production since the Korean War. This is what Eisenhower warned about in his comment to guard against the industrial/military complex. Even today, we are at wartime production. If we were ever to stop, our economy would collapse. It's known as Permanent Wartime Economy.

we simply would have produced Tanks instead of cars and trampled that d***ed forest with mechanized warfare. eliminating the gurellia's ability to fight effectively.

It's that kind of thinking that kept us in that quagmire long after analysists realized the war was unwinnable, back in the early 60s. However, people thinking like you kept insisting that they merely need to apply more force, and the Vietnamese would come around.

We bombed everything in Vietnam, North and South, all the way up to ten miles from the Chinese border. We stationed half a million men in the South. We defoliated an area of Vietnam the size of Massachussetts. This area is still unsuable for anything today because of the chemical weapons we used. We invaded two neighboring countries. We dropped more tonnage of bombs (and more bombs) on Vietnam than in all of WWII against all targets by all nations! We had battleships shelling their coasts. We mined their harbors.

WHAT MORE PRECISELY COULD THE U.S. HAVE DONE!?! . . . except kill all the non-French speaking Vietnamese (leaving 5% of the population). (If you say "invaded the North," consider that that would have resulted in another war with the Chinese. They were fully prepared to intervene if we invaded the North.)

[OldWarrior_42]

There have been lots of Northern Alliances over the years. =)

Possibly. I merely stated that the North Vietnamese army were not known as the Northern Alliance. No intent to insult ... just pointing out a piece of information. Use it as you wish.

And the Viet Cong consisted of North and South Vietnamese... loyal to the Northern cause.... amongst other nationals as well. Just possibly a little more info to use.

[Dis]

I don't have much to say about the harshness of U.S. attacks in the war. But it was a different time back then. I'm sick and tired of people using present day moralities for past wars. It's complete bullsh!t. Why don't you kids get a freakin' grip. If you are going to badmouth Vietnam, then you better bad mouth U.S. and British actions in WW2 along with Germans and Japanese. Atrocities were unheard of in those days. Now if that stuff went on today, I could understand the critisism of bombing.

But back in those days, war was war. and you faught to win. You kids weren't alive in those days. Back then war was faught to be won, not to prevent pissing people off. War was nasty business in the past. It was no picnic.

And I stand by my remarks no matter how stupid they seem . The U.S. left the war in 1973. The war was lost in 1975. You do the math . The S. Vietnamese lost the war, not the U.S. You can call the U.S. quitters, but not losers.

When I'm playing civ3 and war weariness causes every single one of my cities to riot, I stop fighting. Did I lose that war? No. I just quit for the time being. And I know civ3 isn't real life, but close enough for goverment work

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dissident
I don't have much to say about the harshness of U.S. attacks in the war. But it was a different time back then. I'm sick and tired of people using present day moralities for past wars. It's complete bullsh!t. Why don't you kids get a freakin' grip.

Nice to know we have some old dinosaurs to tell us what it was like in them old days.

How ancient are you?