Was it inevitable that the US lost the Vietnam war?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned


In a way, yes. But it was criminal for Johnson to conduct the war the way he did, getting Americans and others killed by the hundreds of thousand without any plan for victory. As I said, Johnson and McNamara intentionally denied Westmorland the troops necessary to go on the offensive.

HeII Johnson and McNamara draw up the list of place to bomb without any Military Commander reviewing or having any imput.

Even in McNamara book on the war, he himself said he was scared of China and Soviet Union.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned
And, btw, had Kennedy lived, I think he would have done the same thing as Nixon. He was not an idiot like Johnson.

Actually it is reported that the speech he did not give because he was killed the day before was going to pull us out. He was going to trained the SVA but not fight the war.

[Patroklos]

The rules refer to legal and moral orders. But all officers must be prepared to refuse illegal or immoral orders. The problem in the Vietnam case was to decide whether the order was moral, if it was admissibly legal.

I fail to see where you are going. A military officer blatanly advocating a course of action contrary to that of the Commander and Cheif after a policy has been accepted, publicly, is at least insubortination, at worst undermining the chain of command.

Opinion and order are not the same thing. While not invading NV or at least not bombing it completely and continually, was a bad idea on the part of the vairous admininstrantions, bad idea does not=illegal.

If the Libs want to use the whole follow the chain to the top stategy they use in Iraq, then the responsibity for the loss of the Vietnam war rests squarely on the sholders of Democrat Liberal presidents.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Joseph
Ditto.

Thats just a reiteration of the "we lost because of the hippies" argument. A weak and flawed case.

We lost because we failed to take into account the cultural and ecological knowledge that the NV had of their own territory and people. The US went in there like they were fighting the Germans in Europe. In the end it was no contest.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I fail to see where you are going. A military officer blatanly advocating a course of action contrary to that of the Commander and Cheif after a policy has been accepted, publicly, is at least insubortination, at worst undermining the chain of command.

A few guys have been responsible for the death of 50000 US Boys, and the suffering of half a million wounded. Any of those guys could have consider that his duty toward the American people was worth a possible insubordination. Even without thinking about the Viet lifes, there was a solid ground for refusal.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Joseph

Diss, you know this would not be true.

why not? They really put it to us in the Korean war.

[Patroklos]

ecological knowledge

Lefties

A few guys have been responsible for the death of 50000 US Boys, and the suffering of half a million wounded. Any of those guys could have consider that his duty toward the American people was worth a possible insubordination. Even without thinking about the Viet lifes, there was a solid ground for refusal.

Lefties

[Dis]

Righties

it works both ways.

but I agree. left handed peopel suck.

[Agathon]

Thats just a reiteration of the "we lost because of the hippies" argument. A weak and flawed case.

They lost because no-one can win against nationalist guerilla movements once the locals have decided that you suck.

How long will it take the Yankee morons to realize this in Iraq?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon

Thats just a reiteration of the "we lost because of the hippies" argument. A weak and flawed case.

They lost because no-one can win against nationalist guerilla movements once the locals have decided that you suck.

How long will it take the Yankee morons to realize this in Iraq?

the difference is most of the locals have not decided that we suck (at least no yet). Most of the Iraqis support the americans.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Lefties

If you were capable of independent thought, you're realize he meant geographic.

And of course, some of us think our duty to the nation exceeds duty to the President. It's sad and terryifying to know that soldiers consider their duty to the President exceeds their duty to the American people. You are exactly the last people who should be allowed in the military. You're all potential traitors to the Constitution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
the difference is most of the locals have not decided that we suck (at least no yet). Most of the Iraqis support the americans.

No, most of the locals haven't turned against us. That's not the same thing. In the areas in which the rebels operate, however, most of the population is against us, and that's why they can't be rooted out.

[Patroklos]

And of course, some of us think our duty to the nation exceeds duty to the President. It's sad and terryifying to know that soldiers consider their duty to the President exceeds their duty to the American people. You are exactly the last people who should be allowed in the military. You're all potential traitors to the Constitution.

Lefties

You hate us when we act on our own initiative because of what we believe, and you hate us when we leave civil decisions to politicians.

Frankly I am happy the power I weild in your name is subject to the control of a president elected by the people, you, and not whatever belief I happen to hold at the moment (which I express by voting myself). This system is apparently working, as you are still alive.

But I can go Prussian on you if you wish

You're all potential traitors to the Constitution

Wow, did I just here a communist "real revolutionary" talk to me about uholding the constitution? Weird.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Joseph
Actually it is reported that the speech he did not give because he was killed the day before was going to pull us out. He was going to trained the SVA but not fight the war.

Joseph, I don't doubt this for a second. McNamara clearly understood that there is no possibility of victory without invading the North and it is no possibility of invading the North without risking a war with China. McNamara advised Kennedy to withdraw the troops by the middle of 1964 and apparently that was what Kennedy was going to do. When Johnson became president he called McNamara and told McNamara that he was going to reverse the decision to withdraw and instead go the other way. McNamara tried to talk to Johnson to explain to him the problem in getting involved on the ground in Vietnam without dealing with the ultimate problem of China. Johnson simply would not listen.

Now we come to the Nixon presidency. Nixon clearly understood that the solution to Vietnam problem was to remove North Vietnam's China card. This he did in the summer of 1972. This quickly lead to peace accords just prior to the election of 1972, but when the Commies balked, Nixon threatened to invade and that is when they capitulated.

It is interesting how liberals try to distort and revise history. Just now there was a movie on TV talking about how Johnson's advisers tried to get him to send troops to Vietnam. In fact it was the other way around as the advisers, most particularly Robert S. McNamara, wanted to withdraw troops.

[Kidlicious]

I think we lost the political battle, and then there was no way to win. The US kept trying to win the political war and it just made things worse, especially for the troops and back home.