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

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="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.

theone86

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.

So? The americans should never have been in Vietnam to begin with.

and the moment even one person died in that war their death was in vain.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]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.fidosim

Yeah, I've heard of crap like that. And those people who do that are **** But that is irrelevant. The Vietnam War was an unpatriotic waste of blood, money, and time. What's the point?

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="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.

theone86

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="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="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.

theone86

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.

Never happened? you must have missed history class. General Westmoreland had asked for 206,000 US troops in March 1968 which Johnson rejected.

Poorly trained and uneducated troops plus a terrible lack of respect for Vietnam civilians lost the war. Blaming 'the media' is just silly. They fought for years at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and achieved nothing. I dont see how it was winnable. Ninja-Hippo

The media did turn public opinion against the war.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]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.fidosim

Johnson mishandled the situation.Though Kennedy helped South Vietnam, Johnson escalated the situtation. I do agree that we could of won but there were various reasons of why we couldn't finish the war, not because of hippies. For example, the mass media that began depicting the worst of war. Just imagine if the mass media developed into what it was back then during World War II.

There were various reasons, usually politics but also the morality of war.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Johnson cracked under the media pressure, HE started the Pull out by limiting the United States involvement in the war. Nixon just finalized it. "The Tet Offensive was a turning point in the war because President Johnson, faced now with an unhappy American public and bad news from his military leaders in Vietnam, decided to no longer escalate the war." Snipes_2

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.

No, deciding to no longer escalate =/= beginning withdrawl, two completely different things. he basically halted the flow of resources into the war until the new administration could take over and decide which direction they wanted to go.

Generals are not he most accurate source, General MacAuthur wanted to use nuclear bombs to win a losing war simply because he could. Most generals generally don't want to give up on a situation where they've lost men. To people who are looking back at the whole picture though, the cost, the lives lost, the outlook for peace, the war was unwinnable. They had a peace agreement, the agreement was broken. Even if they did beat the Vietcong, end the war, and get a peace agreement fighting would just resume once South Vietnam was weak enough again. All Vietnam would ever be for the U.S. is a constant source of casualties no matter if they achieved tenuous victory or not.

Poorly trained and uneducated troops plus a terrible lack of respect for Vietnam civilians lost the war. Blaming 'the media' is just silly. They fought for years at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and achieved nothing. I dont see how it was winnable. Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

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.

RadecSupreme

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.

Never happened? you must have missed history class. General Westmoreland had asked for 206,000 US troops in March 1968 which Johnson rejected.

http://www.historycentral.com/bio/presidents/l_johnson.html Here explains why Johnson resigned.

Now tell me it never happened.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Poorly trained and uneducated troops plus a terrible lack of respect for Vietnam civilians lost the war. Blaming 'the media' is just silly. They fought for years at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and achieved nothing. I dont see how it was winnable. 789shadow

The media did turn public opinion against the war.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

PannicAtack

Never happened? you must have missed history class. General Westmoreland had asked for 206,000 US troops in March 1968 which Johnson rejected.

http://www.historycentral.com/bio/presidents/l_johnson.html Here explains why Johnson resigned.

Now tell me it never happened.

^This.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

PannicAtack

Never happened? you must have missed history class. General Westmoreland had asked for 206,000 US troops in March 1968 which Johnson rejected.

Now tell me it never happened.

Ugh, yes critical mistake of mine. I meant he didnt want to run for reelection.He was finished with presidency. I apologize

It wasn't a normal war. The VC and NVA will fight and die - no matter how many of them do. As Ho Chi Mihn said, "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win." No to mention, there was no morale at all, from the soldiers standpoint nor from an average US citizen standpoint.

The Soldiers had no idea why they were fighting. Many of them felt no reason to fight at all. When do you see a war when many soldiers shoot their leg, so they can be shipped to Japanese hospitals away from Vietnam, or throwing grenades into Officer's showers to kill them/scare them?

Of course we won almost every battle physically...But they strategically beat us in many ways. Vietnam was a war where the majority of the soldiers were waiting till their 366 days of service was over, and consisted of demoralized troops who did not even want to be fighting the war they were forced into.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

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.

theone86

No, deciding to no longer escalate =/= beginning withdrawl, two completely different things. he basically halted the flow of resources into the war until the new administration could take over and decide which direction they wanted to go.

Generals are not he most accurate source, General MacAuthur wanted to use nuclear bombs to win a losing war simply because he could. Most generals generally don't want to give up on a situation where they've lost men. To people who are looking back at the whole picture though, the cost, the lives lost, the outlook for peace, the war was unwinnable. They had a peace agreement, the agreement was broken. Even if they did beat the Vietcong, end the war, and get a peace agreement fighting would just resume once South Vietnam was weak enough again. All Vietnam would ever be for the U.S. is a constant source of casualties no matter if they achieved tenuous victory or not.

Johnson mishandled the situation.Though Kennedy helped South Vietnam, Johnson escalated the situtation. I do agree that we could of won but there were various reasons of why we couldn't finish the war, not because of hippies. For example, the mass media that began depicting the worst of war. Just imagine if the mass media developed into what it was back then during World War II.

There were various reasons, usually politics but also the morality of war.

leviathan91

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Poorly trained and uneducated troops plus a terrible lack of respect for Vietnam civilians lost the war. Blaming 'the media' is just silly. They fought for years at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and achieved nothing. I dont see how it was winnable. Ninja-Hippo

The media did turn public opinion against the war.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Johnson mishandled the situation.Though Kennedy helped South Vietnam, Johnson escalated the situtation. I do agree that we could of won but there were various reasons of why we couldn't finish the war, not because of hippies. For example, the mass media that began depicting the worst of war. Just imagine if the mass media developed into what it was back then during World War II.

There were various reasons, usually politics but also the morality of war.

SgtKevali

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

It wasn't a normal war. The VC and NVA will fight and die - no matter how many of them do. As Ho Chi Mihn said, "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win." No to mention, there was no morale at all, from the soldiers standpoint nor from an average US citizen standpoint.

The Soldiers had no idea why they were fighting. Many of them felt no reason to fight at all. When do you see a war when many soldiers shoot their leg, so they can be shipped to Japanese hospitals away from Vietnam, or throwing grenades into Officer's showers to kill them/scare them?

Of course we won almost every battle physically...But they strategically beat us in many ways. Vietnam was a war where the majority of the soldiers were waiting till their 366 days of service was over, and consisted of demoralized troops who did not even want to be fighting the war they were forced into.

taj7575

Exactly. Morale is CRITICAL for any war.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Poorly trained and uneducated troops plus a terrible lack of respect for Vietnam civilians lost the war. Blaming 'the media' is just silly. They fought for years at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and achieved nothing. I dont see how it was winnable. Ninja-Hippo

The media did turn public opinion against the war.

It was showing the truth but it failed to show the entire truth such as the victories. There are deaths and gore and violence in every single war because that is what it was about. It was the first time shown TV which is why it made such a huge influence.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] IT says he "Decided to NO LONGER escalate the war". He started the withdrawal. I find that hard to believe, I've read Biographies from Generals and Officers from the Vietnam war, all said we could have won. We had the Hanoi in our hands and we didn't go for it.

Snipes_2

No, deciding to no longer escalate =/= beginning withdrawl, two completely different things. he basically halted the flow of resources into the war until the new administration could take over and decide which direction they wanted to go.

Generals are not he most accurate source, General MacAuthur wanted to use nuclear bombs to win a losing war simply because he could. Most generals generally don't want to give up on a situation where they've lost men. To people who are looking back at the whole picture though, the cost, the lives lost, the outlook for peace, the war was unwinnable. They had a peace agreement, the agreement was broken. Even if they did beat the Vietcong, end the war, and get a peace agreement fighting would just resume once South Vietnam was weak enough again. All Vietnam would ever be for the U.S. is a constant source of casualties no matter if they achieved tenuous victory or not.

Didn't I just explain that to you? We had a cease fire, it was broken, the North were never going to stop fighting even if that meant they had to wait for the U.S. to leave to start fighting again, and if we decided to go back in they would have just killed more troops.

Generals only see the situation on the ground, they don't see all the other factors that go into a war.

One, you're assuming that the war should have been promoted. Two, it does nothing when he's on his way out of office anyways, all it does it leave the tought decision to the next President. If anything, it was a matter of saving historical political face.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Johnson mishandled the situation.Though Kennedy helped South Vietnam, Johnson escalated the situtation. I do agree that we could of won but there were various reasons of why we couldn't finish the war, not because of hippies. For example, the mass media that began depicting the worst of war. Just imagine if the mass media developed into what it was back then during World War II.

There were various reasons, usually politics but also the morality of war.

taj7575

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

The only objective was to stack communist bodies. But there was some good going on as we were defending the south vietnamese which were being killed in bombings and massacres by the vietcong. I understand that was not U.S. motive but its what many troops thought they fought for.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

RadecSupreme

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

The only objective was to stack communist bodies. But there was some good going on as we were defending the south vietnamese which were being killed in bombings and massacres by the vietcong. I understand that was not U.S. motive but its what many troops thought they fought for.

They were being killed by the Vietcong?

No, no, no. They were being killed by US bombing raids, or US raids into villages.

Remember, the majority of the rural area of South Vietnam was actually controlled by the VC...Many of the villagers worked with them too.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Johnson mishandled the situation.Though Kennedy helped South Vietnam, Johnson escalated the situtation. I do agree that we could of won but there were various reasons of why we couldn't finish the war, not because of hippies. For example, the mass media that began depicting the worst of war. Just imagine if the mass media developed into what it was back then during World War II.

There were various reasons, usually politics but also the morality of war.

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Johnson mishandled the situation.Though Kennedy helped South Vietnam, Johnson escalated the situtation. I do agree that we could of won but there were various reasons of why we couldn't finish the war, not because of hippies. For example, the mass media that began depicting the worst of war. Just imagine if the mass media developed into what it was back then during World War II.

There were various reasons, usually politics but also the morality of war.

taj7575

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

What's the clear objective?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

The media did turn public opinion against the war.

On3ShotOneKill

During the end of WWII, Ho Chi Minh actually supported the US a lot. FDR liked Vietnam too. Ho Chi Minh actually sent a message to FDR asking for help for Vietnam independence, but sadly FDR died before coming to any conclusion.

The only reason we suddenly changed was because we had to come to the aid of France/he was a Communist.

U.S. were stacking more Vietcong bodies and countered the Tet Offensive.

RadecSupreme

Sorry, bodies mean nothing, unless you somehow think you win a war by murdering as many of there people as you can.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

The only objective was to stack communist bodies. But there was some good going on as we were defending the south vietnamese which were being killed in bombings and massacres by the vietcong. I understand that was not U.S. motive but its what many troops thought they fought for.

They were being killed by the Vietcong?

No, no, no. They were being killed by US bombing raids, or US raids into villages.

Remember, the majority of the rural area of South Vietnam was actually controlled by the VC...Many of the villagers worked with them too.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] We were fighting to stop the North from spreading Communism. We left and the North led the Easter Offensive, annihilating the South Vietnamese. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

World War 2 and Vietnam aren't really comparable in the types of war they were. World War 2 had clear goals and objectives. Vietnam didn't really. Sort of like Iraq and Afghanistan.

SgtKevali

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

What's the clear objective?

Afghanistan - Kill the terrorists ruling the area. Also, maybe not directly, kill the drug trade in Afghanistan.

Iraq - Support, or not, but the objective was that Iraq contained chemical weapons, and they were a threat to us. Like many other people, we were worried, so many people supported.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Because the war was unwinnable. Blaming the media is blaming the messenger. It's not the media's fault for showing people the truth, it was the truth itself.taj7575

During the end of WWII, Ho Chi Minh actually supported the US a lot. FDR liked Vietnam too. Ho Chi Minh actually sent a message to FDR asking for help for Vietnam independence, but sadly FDR died before coming to any conclusion.

The only reason we suddenly changed was because we had to come to the aid of France/he was a Communist.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And was that really a worthwhile endeavor? The North Vietnamese were not rabid communists looking to spread world revolution. They saw themselves as Vietnamese nationalists who were trying to unite Vietnam, and never threatened the autonomy of any other country. Moreover, the actual war was already over when the Vietnamese defeated French imperialism ten years before LBJ escalated the war. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

The only objective was to stack communist bodies. But there was some good going on as we were defending the south vietnamese which were being killed in bombings and massacres by the vietcong. I understand that was not U.S. motive but its what many troops thought they fought for.

On3ShotOneKill

They were being killed by the Vietcong?

No, no, no. They were being killed by US bombing raids, or US raids into villages.

Remember, the majority of the rural area of South Vietnam was actually controlled by the VC...Many of the villagers worked with them too.

Well..The VC was based in South Vietnam..They were south vietnamese, who secretly worked with the North.

They only South Vietnamese they killed, in intent, were the ARVN soldiers.

There wasn't an election though. They were murdering their countrymen before and after we joined/left. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] The war was unwinnable because our objective was unwinnable. How the F do you stop the spread of and IDEOLOGY with military force? That's like going to war in order to eliminate religion or even our current "War on Terror". Absolutely rediculous. If we wanted to destroy/dismantle the NVA and wage total war we could have. Although that would be incredibly stupid as the Vietnamese were no threat to us and lives would (again) be wasted for nothing.On3ShotOneKill

During the end of WWII, Ho Chi Minh actually supported the US a lot. FDR liked Vietnam too. Ho Chi Minh actually sent a message to FDR asking for help for Vietnam independence, but sadly FDR died before coming to any conclusion.

The only reason we suddenly changed was because we had to come to the aid of France/he was a Communist.

Yeah..After WWII, we didn't really handle our foreign policy well.

Lets not forget the billions we threw at France to try to help them win too. And what did they get out of it? Nothing, but even more serious debt, added with their other war debts.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

They were being killed by the Vietcong?

No, no, no. They were being killed by US bombing raids, or US raids into villages.

Remember, the majority of the rural area of South Vietnam was actually controlled by the VC...Many of the villagers worked with them too.

taj7575

Well..The VC was based in South Vietnam..They were south vietnamese, who secretly worked with the North.

They only South Vietnamese they killed, in intent, were the ARVN soldiers.

Are you kidding me? What about all the south vietnamese villagers they used as terrorist to kill soldiers? Or all the innocent children they sent to commit suicide with grenades? Or the bombs they put in baby carriages? In fact, they murdered so many innocent people during the Tet offensive with the bombs, especially in Saigon.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Afghanistan and Iraq (not as clearly as Afghanistan) both have an objectives.

You are right about Vietnam though...There was no objective...And the majority of the soldiers felt that way too.

What's the clear objective?

Afghanistan - Kill the terrorists ruling the area. Also, maybe not directly, kill the drug trade in Afghanistan.

Iraq - Support, or not, but the objective was that Iraq contained chemical weapons, and they were a threat to us. Like many other people, we were worried, so many people supported.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="theone86"]

No, deciding to no longer escalate =/= beginning withdrawl, two completely different things. he basically halted the flow of resources into the war until the new administration could take over and decide which direction they wanted to go.

Generals are not he most accurate source, General MacAuthur wanted to use nuclear bombs to win a losing war simply because he could. Most generals generally don't want to give up on a situation where they've lost men. To people who are looking back at the whole picture though, the cost, the lives lost, the outlook for peace, the war was unwinnable. They had a peace agreement, the agreement was broken. Even if they did beat the Vietcong, end the war, and get a peace agreement fighting would just resume once South Vietnam was weak enough again. All Vietnam would ever be for the U.S. is a constant source of casualties no matter if they achieved tenuous victory or not.

theone86

Didn't I just explain that to you? We had a cease fire, it was broken, the North were never going to stop fighting even if that meant they had to wait for the U.S. to leave to start fighting again, and if we decided to go back in they would have just killed more troops.

Generals only see the situation on the ground, they don't see all the other factors that go into a war.

One, you're assuming that the war should have been promoted. Two, it does nothing when he's on his way out of office anyways, all it does it leave the tought decision to the next President. If anything, it was a matter of saving historical political face.

Let us just fix this thread as quickly as possible: The only way to win the war would be to eliminate every last person that opposed your view. It was quite similar to the (American) revolutionary war -Great Britain would have gad to kill every last separatist...otherwise the movement for freedom would always continue...they eventually got tired of the mounting losses on foreign soil and said **** it...it is not worth it It would have been the same for us in Vietnam...you are trying to make people do something (not take something)...which is impossiblerawsavon

Actually, if you cant stop an ideal then why hasnt there been a revolutionary war in N.K. or Cuba in which the people are opressed.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]There wasn't an election though. They were murdering their countrymen before and after we joined/left. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

They were being killed by the Vietcong?

No, no, no. They were being killed by US bombing raids, or US raids into villages.

Remember, the majority of the rural area of South Vietnam was actually controlled by the VC...Many of the villagers worked with them too.

Well..The VC was based in South Vietnam..They were south vietnamese, who secretly worked with the North.

They only South Vietnamese they killed, in intent, were the ARVN soldiers.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] To be fair the VC were killing South Vietnamese citizens as well. They were far from innocent.RadecSupreme

Well..The VC was based in South Vietnam..They were south vietnamese, who secretly worked with the North.

They only South Vietnamese they killed, in intent, were the ARVN soldiers.

Are you kidding me? What about all the south vietnamese villagers they used as terrorist to kill soldiers? Or all the innocent children they sent to commit suicide with grenades? Or the bombs they put in baby carriages? In fact, they murdered so many innocent people during the Tet offensive with the bombs, especially in Saigon.

It doesn't compare to our Bombing raids we did though, especially in North Vietnam later in the war.

And, I said, in intent. As brutal as it is, they did not want to kill those kids. They had a purpose, and they were going to do anything they can to get their way of it.

Their true intent was to kill US and ARVN soldiers.

It was showing the truth but it failed to show the entire truth such as the victories. There are deaths and gore and violence in every single war because that is what it was about. It was the first time shown TV which is why it made such a huge influence.

RadecSupreme

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]Let us just fix this thread as quickly as possible: The only way to win the war would be to eliminate every last person that opposed your view. It was quite similar to the (American) revolutionary war -Great Britain would have gad to kill every last separatist...otherwise the movement for freedom would always continue...they eventually got tired of the mounting losses on foreign soil and said **** it...it is not worth it It would have been the same for us in Vietnam...you are trying to make people do something (not take something)...which is impossibleRadecSupreme

Actually, if you cant stop an ideal then why hasnt there been a revolutionary war in N.K. or Cuba in which the people are opressed.