U.S. could have won Vietnam and the deaths would not have been in vain.

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

You're right! We should go back now and fix it!

You're right! We should go back now and fix it!

789shadow

We? Who's "We"? I'm not American.

Yeah. Because winning a war based on pointless, abstract ideals is so much better than losing one based on abstract human ideals.





Hint: It don't matter whether we win or lose a war that is being fought for no purpose.

Who cares? They got unified. Korea on the other hand

Who cares? They got unified. Korea on the other hand

whackedjob213

They got unified in an extremely ugly way. After American troops left, south vietnamese were tortured, maimed, and burned. The war just got horribly worse.

What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like? It's not as though Vietnam is a grave threat today.

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

RadecSupreme

Sorry. Had to.

What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like?GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like?scorch-62

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

GHlegend77

Sorry. Had to.

Its not a conspiracy at all. Its been said by Historians. Its the truth.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like?hamstergeddon

Hasnt North Korea been threatning US with chemical weapons for a long time now?

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like?hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] Containment of communism -- same reason why Korea gets a W in the history books.RadecSupreme

Hasnt North Korea been threatning US with chemical weapons for a long time now?

They threaten everyone with everything.

Who cares? They got unified. Korea on the other hand

whackedjob213

South Koreans seem quite happy with the situation.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] Containment of communism -- same reason why Korea gets a W in the history books.RadecSupreme

Hasnt North Korea been threatning US with chemical weapons for a long time now?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like?scorch-62

Again, Vietnam does not pose any threat to the US. The US would not really gain anything even if they had "won" in Vietnam.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] Containment of communism -- same reason why Korea gets a W in the history books.RadecSupreme

Hasnt North Korea been threatning US with chemical weapons for a long time now?

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

RadecSupreme

how to win a war with no casualties on our side

use planes to bombard their country into submission

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

Snipes_2

Actually m16 were great weapons, soldiers had to take care of them and it was the first automatic weapon to become standard issue. I do agree that it should have been more environmentally versatile but it still got the job done and it was much better than the weapons the vietcong were running around with. US was winning , the only problem were the protest and media which forced US to retreat its troops.

The hippies were an anathema.

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

RadecSupreme

Let's take into account some factors that were unrelate to American popular opinion:

Americans were firebombing entire areas, killing civilians, and cutting them off from vital supplies of food. If you want to take a moral high ground you first must make sure there's high ground to be taken.

American troops were outmanuevered by the Vietcong. No matter how many they killed the Vietcong still knew the area better and still had the advantadge in a straight up fight, to the point where Americans resorted to dropping pesticides that caused long term health problems for many of their troops in order to gain the advantadge by destroying the jungle.

America pulled out because they had lost strategic ground and more manpower than the administration felt was worth it, not because of protesters. The people who brought America into the conflict thought it would be a short war with minimum casualties, that was not anywhere near the case.

Furthermore, Vietnam has since proven itself to be a vital member of the world community. They have overcome their violent past and are looked at as a productive world society, and that in no way has influenced the spread of communism like the war mongerers said it would. Every country has a bloody past and that doesn't make the crimes committed right, but they are now a stable society so who are we to say that if we had imported democracy in our unending wisom it would have turned out any better? THere are plenty of scenarios, in fact, in which doing that might have caused things to turn out a lot worse.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

RadecSupreme

Actually m16 were great weapons, soldiers had to take care of them and it was the first automatic weapon to become standard issue. I do agree that it should have been more environmentally versatile but it still got the job done and it was much better than the weapons the vietcong were running around with. US was winning , the only problem were the protest and media which forced US to retreat its troops.

The hippies were an anathema.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

theone86

Let's take into account some factors that were unrelate to American popular opinion:

Americans were firebombing entire areas, killing civilians, and cutting them off from vital supplies of food. If you want to take a moral high ground you first must make sure there's high ground to be taken.

American troops were outmanuevered by the Vietcong. No matter how many they killed the Vietcong still knew the area better and still had the advantadge in a straight up fight, to the point where Americans resorted to dropping pesticides that caused long term health problems for many of their troops in order to gain the advantadge by destroying the jungle.

America pulled out because they had lost strategic ground and more manpower than the administration felt was worth it, not because of protesters. The people who brought America into the conflict thought it would be a short war with minimum casualties, that was not anywhere near the case.

Furthermore, Vietnam has since proven itself to be a vital member of the world community. They have overcome their violent past and are looked at as a productive world society, and that in no way has influenced the spread of communism like the war mongerers said it would. Every country has a bloody past and that doesn't make the crimes committed right, but they are now a stable society so who are we to say that if we had imported democracy in our unending wisom it would have turned out any better? THere are plenty of scenarios, in fact, in which doing that might have caused things to turn out a lot worse.

No. America pulled out because the people protested and caused too many riots. Lyndon B. Johnson had become the most hated president in America because of the media. This was during the era of the major progression of the television. It had revolutionized media so news companies were going to Vietnam and filming warfare, massacres, body bags and gore. This had caused an uprising in the young American population. The US forces had countered the Tet Offensive and had the special forces hitting the Ho Chi Minh trails hard to the point where the Vietcong lost plenty of resource. What do boxers do when they are losing rounds in a fight? They go desperately for the knockout. That is what the Tet offensive resembled. After that failed, they thought they were going to lose. Even Ho Chi minh said it was a bad loss. US forces where pushing the unsupplied vietcong all the way back to the North and where going to invade until the protests and riots got out of hand and the government understood that the people controlled the country. The problem was that those people were the hippies.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Johnson caused it too. HE gave our troops inadequate weapons. Plastic M16s that couldn't hold up to the environment. I feel those lives were lost and destroyed for no apparent reason, why join in a war if you're just going to quit?Snipes_2

Actually m16 were great weapons, soldiers had to take care of them and it was the first automatic weapon to become standard issue. I do agree that it should have been more environmentally versatile but it still got the job done and it was much better than the weapons the vietcong were running around with. US was winning , the only problem were the protest and media which forced US to retreat its troops.

The hippies were an anathema.

I think this quote says all that it needs to, seeing as how Kennedy was the one who STARTED America's involvement in the war and Johnson the one who escalated it, not ended it, and also seeing as how it was Richard Nixon who pulled out in 1973 (yes, Republicans pull out too) four years after Johnson's term ended.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Johnson caused it too. HE gave our troops inadequate weapons. Plastic M16s that couldn't hold up to the environment. I feel those lives were lost and destroyed for no apparent reason, why join in a war if you're just going to quit?RadecSupreme

Actually m16 were great weapons, soldiers had to take care of them and it was the first automatic weapon to become standard issue. I do agree that it should have been more environmentally versatile but it still got the job done and it was much better than the weapons the vietcong were running around with. US was winning , the only problem were the protest and media which forced US to retreat its troops.

The hippies were an anathema.

There's no point in arguing what-if scenarios unless if you want to support the banning of protests and anti-war news.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Actually m16 were great weapons, soldiers had to take care of them and it was the first automatic weapon to become standard issue. I do agree that it should have been more environmentally versatile but it still got the job done and it was much better than the weapons the vietcong were running around with. US was winning , the only problem were the protest and media which forced US to retreat its troops.

The hippies were an anathema.

theone86

I think this quote says all that it needs to, seeing as how Kennedy was the one who STARTED America's involvement in the war and Johnson the one who escalated it, not ended it, and also seeing as how it was Richard Nixon who pulled out in 1973 (yes, Republicans pull out too) four years after Johnson's term ended.

Johnson had stopped the support of troops which were required to put the knife to the heart. He had resigned his presidency if you remembered.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]What would the US have gained from a victory, whatever a victory might have looked like?GabuEx

Again, Vietnam does not pose any threat to the US. The US would not really gain anything even if they had "won" in Vietnam.

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"]

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

RadecSupreme

Sorry. Had to.

Its not a conspiracy at all. Its been said by Historians. Its the truth.

Any links/videos to back it up?

:lol: I have a feeling TC just watched a documentary about the vietnam war and now thinks he is an expert on the subject :P

why join in a war if you're just going to quit?Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Actually m16 were great weapons, soldiers had to take care of them and it was the first automatic weapon to become standard issue. I do agree that it should have been more environmentally versatile but it still got the job done and it was much better than the weapons the vietcong were running around with. US was winning , the only problem were the protest and media which forced US to retreat its troops.

The hippies were an anathema.

theone86

I think this quote says all that it needs to, seeing as howKennedy was the one who STARTED America's involvement in the war, not ended it, and also seeing as how it was Richard Nixon who pulled out in 1973 (yes, Republicans pull out too) four years after Johnson's term ended.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]why join in a war if you're just going to quit?-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

RadecSupreme

Let's take into account some factors that were unrelate to American popular opinion:

Americans were firebombing entire areas, killing civilians, and cutting them off from vital supplies of food. If you want to take a moral high ground you first must make sure there's high ground to be taken.

American troops were outmanuevered by the Vietcong. No matter how many they killed the Vietcong still knew the area better and still had the advantadge in a straight up fight, to the point where Americans resorted to dropping pesticides that caused long term health problems for many of their troops in order to gain the advantadge by destroying the jungle.

America pulled out because they had lost strategic ground and more manpower than the administration felt was worth it, not because of protesters. The people who brought America into the conflict thought it would be a short war with minimum casualties, that was not anywhere near the case.

Furthermore, Vietnam has since proven itself to be a vital member of the world community. They have overcome their violent past and are looked at as a productive world society, and that in no way has influenced the spread of communism like the war mongerers said it would. Every country has a bloody past and that doesn't make the crimes committed right, but they are now a stable society so who are we to say that if we had imported democracy in our unending wisom it would have turned out any better? THere are plenty of scenarios, in fact, in which doing that might have caused things to turn out a lot worse.

No. America pulled out because the people protested and caused too many riots. Lyndon B. Johnson had become the most hated president in America because of the media. This was during the era of the major progression of the television. It had revolutionized media so news companies were going to Vietnam and filming warfare, massacres, body bags and gore. This had caused an uprising in the young American population. The US forces had countered the Tet Offensive and had the special forces hitting the Ho Chi Minh trails hard to the point where the Vietcong lost plenty of resource. What do boxers do when they are losing rounds in a fight? They go desperately for the knockout. That is what the Tet offensive resembled. After that failed, they thought they were going to lose. Even Ho Chi minh said it was a bad loss. US forces where pushing the unsupplied vietcong all the way back to the North and where going to invade until the protests and riots got out of hand and the government understood that the people controlled the country. The problem was that those people were the hippies.

The U.S. lost 30,000 troops during the Johnson administration alone, that's no small number. No country goes into a war thinking they have infinite resources, that's insanely bad planning. Eventually a certain point is reached where all people question the need to continue to sacrifice lives, even military officials, and that time came in Vietnam.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

Vietnam could have been won by the United States if the people in the homeland had not caused chaos in the protest. Especially the hippie movement. I am not pro-war or American but this is how I see it. U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive. Hippies and the media caused the loss.

xTheExploited

:lol: I have a feeling TC just watched a documentary about the vietnam war and now thinks he is an expert on the subject :P

RiseAgainst12

Not really, I read many history books about Vietnam. I have only watched on documentary about Vietnam which was about agent orange. I have seen various movies as well but movies are movies obviously.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Oh, I wasn't saying they didn't do the job they were intended. They just couldn't hold up to the environment. They jammed frequently and often. We could have finished off that war easily. The Anti War Protesters and Media did play a factor in our retreat, Johnson was under pressure and he cracked like the weakling he is. Snipes_2

I think this quote says all that it needs to, seeing as howKennedy was the one who STARTED America's involvement in the war, not ended it, and also seeing as how it was Richard Nixon who pulled out in 1973 (yes, Republicans pull out too) four years after Johnson's term ended.

You better check your sources, Johnson escalated the war more than any other President involved in it. The only other President to do nearly as much as Johnson was Nixon when he authorized the bombings of Cambodia and Laos, and even then he withdrew far greater numbers of troops than he sent in. As for the media, that's really not true at all, there was significant opposition for the war from the very start and it never influenced the policy of the U.S. significantly. The loss of thousands of American lives, weakening of the South Vietnamese defense, and realization that the war would never truly stop is what caused the retreat, not any cut and run tactics.

I can't wait to see how they depict the Vietnam War on the history channels, America a Story of US.

Back on topic, who cares? It was a mistake to go into that war in the first place.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]why join in a war if you're just going to quit?Snipes_2

In a war like that, the deaths are always in vein.

In my opinion of course.

You know why people protested? Because they didn't want to get drafted and forced to fight and die for a war they didn't believe in. I think the hippies were pretty justified.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Oh, I wasn't saying they didn't do the job they were intended. They just couldn't hold up to the environment. They jammed frequently and often. We could have finished off that war easily. The Anti War Protesters and Media did play a factor in our retreat, Johnson was under pressure and he cracked like the weakling he is. RadecSupreme

I think this quote says all that it needs to, seeing as how Kennedy was the one who STARTED America's involvement in the war and Johnson the one who escalated it, not ended it, and also seeing as how it was Richard Nixon who pulled out in 1973 (yes, Republicans pull out too) four years after Johnson's term ended.

Johnson had stopped the support of troops which were required to put the knife to the heart. He had resigned his presidency if you remembered.

No, I don't remember, must've missed that part in history class, or maybe it just never happened. Comments like this are a perfect justification for ad hominem by the way.

How would we have won? By killing everybody? And what's actually unpatriotic and vain is sending off American boys to be slaughtered for what? So we can say haha to the Soviets?