The Only American General to Lose a War Dead at 91

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Two out of three aren't bad. We didn't succeed in the conquest of Canada, but we got everything else.

Those two being? End of impressing seamen doesn't count.

[sprucemoose3311]

Originally posted by Geronimo


US foreign policy was the real credibility loser in vietnam not the us military.

absolutly correct on that point.
US had horrible foreign policy. most foreign representatives did not speak the local language, did not know they were pissing off the local people.
furthermore, a lot of us aid to vietnamese villages in the north and south was credited to the USSR because the communists spread word that the aid was from the USSR and they wrote in vietnamese: from the USSR

The US did learn from most of its mistakes... but there was a lot of ground to recover and it would have been difficult to secure indochina after these political mistakes.

a good fictionalized read of this, and one of the better Vietnam war books, is The Ugly American

itsa balanced but eventually pro american look at actions that had occured and should spread on a larger scale

[Sikander]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311


the goal set forth by lyndon johnson was to fight a war of attrition to force the north to the bargaining table and force a peace settlement. we were afraid to have the chinese enter the war like korea. the north did not want to recognize the south as legitimate and the south felt the same. it took years before all three sides even agreed upon how to start peace talks.

Nixon came in and created a policy of vietnamization. us troops would be replaced by vietnamese troops. this worked well, by the time of the peace treaty, the vietnamese made up large percentages of active combat units. when aided by air cover they were just as effective as US troops. then peace came.

preemptive:
no one has brought it up yet but i will preemt it:
The tet offensive was a US victory. initially the NVA succeded in certain areas. HOWEVER at the end of the battle the North had lost so much man power and resources that they could not launch an offensive until 1975.

Actually the NVA launched a huge offensive in 1972 that almost did to the NVA what Tet did to the VC. This was supposed to be "the final offensive", and the losses were never fully recovered by the North. The actual final offensive in 1975 was only supposed to be a limited offensive, but between the incompetence of the South Vietnamese leadership and the determination of the radicals in the U.S. Congress to see South Vietnam defeated the NVA was able to press on and destroy most of the South's better formations. Wisely the NVA kept up a relentless pursuit and walked into Saigon with relatively weak forces against almost no resistence from the thouroughly demoralized and disintegrating ARVN.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Decision goes to the defender.

Given that the U.S. started the war by trying to invade Canada, and had their butts kicked, Canada won the war.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Actually the causus belli was impressment of US merchant seamen into service for the Brits.

A feeble excuse to start a war, not unlike weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by sprucemoose3311
how did the us lose vietnam if us involvement ended in 1973, pulled out all us military personel and left by april. then wietnam fell due to high corruption in may of 1975...

Because the US was forced to completely retreat with its tail between its legs. The puppet government it left behind collapsed like a house of cards. US policies, particularly bombing neutral countries, turned people in the region against US puppets in places like Laos and Cambodia. And the US spent the next 15 years looking weak on the international stage.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, we sure looked weak in the 80's

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


A feeble excuse to start a war, not unlike weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Yea, involuntary servitude is a really stupid reason to go to war. I'm sure Canada will agree when I make you my new butler.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Because the US was forced to completely retreat with its tail between its legs. The puppet government it left behind collapsed like a house of cards. US policies, particularly bombing neutral countries, turned people in the region against US puppets in places like Laos and Cambodia. And the US spent the next 15 years looking weak on the international stage.

The U.S. military left completely intact and in comfort long before the collapse of ARVN.

The last significant U.S. military action in Vietnam was two years before the collapse.

As for bombing of neutral countries, these same countries had been occupied by the NVA for years before the U.S. started to bomb their positions.

Let's see, Saigon was lost in 1975. The U.S. led West won the Cold War (you know, the 50 year war which Vietnam was only a part of) in 1989. That's 14 years, and we weren't exactly looking weak just before we won were we?

Typical crap from you. You have to run the U.S. down in order to live with your devotion to your Chicom masters. But you might consider burnishing your rationalizations in private in order to avoid the regular pwnage you receive.

[Patroklos]

As for bombing of neutral countries, these same countries had been occupied by the NVA for years before the U.S. started to bomb their positions.

Not to mention that according to international law you have to be capable of maintaining your neutrality to be a legal neutral.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Saras
Those two being? End of impressing seamen doesn't count.

1st and foremost, to stop British molestation of American shipping, including the impressment of American sailors. Despite your dissmissal, for a nation that lives off of trade, this was an extremely serious threat. You can poo-poo if you like, but if sailors can't be secure from foriegn piracy, then there aren't going to be many more sailors soon, which means no trade, which means the U.S.'s economy collapses.

2) To remove British forts from the American fronteer and stop the Brits from stirring up the Indians against us. Regardless of whether or noth the Indians had a legit cause for going after us, the Brits had no right to be arming them and giving them supplies just to attack us. Further, if you can't control your own territory and stop foreign countries from putting forts in it, it's not your territory. Had we done nothing about those forts, the Brits could have claimed the Northwest territories.

The seizure of Canada was tacked on as a, would be nice if we can get it, but it was not the major or even secondary war aim of the U.S. The goals of the war was to force Britain to stop ****ing with us. We won the war.

Canada didn't exist. Therefore, it cannot, by definition, have won the war. The British Empire managed to avoid losing a colony, hardly a victory for the most powerful country in the world. They should have wiped the floor with us, even considering Nappy's threat in Europe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
The actual final offensive in 1975 was only supposed to be a limited offensive, but between the incompetence of the South Vietnamese leadership and the determination of the radicals in the U.S. Congress to see South Vietnam defeated the NVA was able to press on and destroy most of the South's better formations.

Actually, the South started an offensive after the U.S. pulled out, despite the fact there was supposed to be a cease fire. They did well enough for a while, but they overstretched themselves (considering the corruption and lack of American air support).

In '75, the South decided to pull back to better defend itself in the face of a minor NVA offesnive, but due to total incompetence on its part, the orderly retreat fell apart into a total collapse on the part of ARVN, and the NVA just moved forward and picked up the pieces.

It wasn't "radicals in the U.S. Congress" who caused the South to fall. They, along with pretty much everyone but the reactionaries, felt that the South was a lost cause, even with all the help that we could have given them. Even the Ford Administration considered it hopeless, though they were willing to send supplies anyway.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not to mention that according to international law you have to be capable of maintaining your neutrality to be a legal neutral.

So then Nicaragua had every right to invade the Honduras in the 1980s.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, we sure looked weak in the 80's

Other than the great American victories over the great military powers of Panama and Grenada, what did the US military do between 73 and 88?

[Patroklos]

Other than the great American victories over the great military powers of Panama and Grenada, what did the US military do between 73 and 88?

Continue to win the Cold War, as it would seem.

Or maybe we should have started some other wars so we could win them?