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

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="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.

taj7575

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.

That so? Well the same can be said for the US army. Their intent with the Bomb raids was to kill Vietcong and North Vietnamese military. They didnt want to kill innocent people. There were too many accidents.

[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.

On3ShotOneKill

We'll probably try to build it up..Although it will not work out too well.

I'm sure we will try to stop their Opium production though. We will probably pressure them into help stopping it anyways.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

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.

RadecSupreme

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.

That so? Well the same can be said for the US army. Their intent with the Bomb raids was to kill Vietcong and North Vietnamese military. They didnt want to kill innocent people. There were too many accidents.

I know, in the end it was people following objectives. It was war..War sucks.

After they took over Vietnam though, there is no doubt that their atrocities were terrible.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

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

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

Talk about a very dead horse that just got beaten..... And just so you know, it's War. All deaths were already in vain, regardless of who wins.

[QUOTE="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 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.

Actually, in Vietnam, the US acted pretty forcefully in many situations. My Lai - They were told that the 48th VC Batallion was in the city, and no civilians were in there. They went into the village, only to see civilians. A few, who felt they were to obey the orders, shot a few people. Next thing you know, it's a bloodbath.

Also, the soldiers were agressive when going through villages, especially after a few casualties started piling up.

If you watch any documentaries..And there is a good author called Tim O'Brien who even mentions many times where a squad would loose a soldier, walk upto a random Animal, or even some South Vietnamese civilians, and just terrorize/unload on them with bullets.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

We'll probably try to build it up..Although it will not work out too well.

I'm sure we will try to stop their Opium production though. We will probably pressure them into help stopping it anyways.

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="rawsavon"][QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

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.

taj7575

Actually, in Vietnam, the US acted pretty forcefully in many situations. My Lai - They were told that the 48th VC Batallion was in the city, and no civilians were in there. They went into the village, only to see civilians. A few, who felt they were to obey the orders, shot a few people. Next thing you know, it's a bloodbath.

Also, the soldiers were agressive when going through villages, especially after a few casualties started piling up.

If you watch any documentaries..And there is a good author called Tim O'Brien who even mentions many times where a squad would loose a soldier, walk upto a random Animal, or even some South Vietnamese civilians, and just terrorize/unload on them with bullets.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] You can't "kill" the drug trade in Afghanistan with out killing their only cash crop; It's a catch 22. Are we going to build up the entire country too even though there is barely any infrastructure to start with?On3ShotOneKill

We'll probably try to build it up..Although it will not work out too well.

I'm sure we will try to stop their Opium production though. We will probably pressure them into help stopping it anyways.

Who knows? Maybe they'll try putting buisnesses/manufactures in.

To be honest, I have no idea what the future of Afghanistan will be, but I think we will try to stop the Poppy trade.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Because they are willing to kill all that oppose them -we (and the British) were notrawsavon

Actually, in Vietnam, the US acted pretty forcefully in many situations. My Lai - They were told that the 48th VC Batallion was in the city, and no civilians were in there. They went into the village, only to see civilians. A few, who felt they were to obey the orders, shot a few people. Next thing you know, it's a bloodbath.

Also, the soldiers were agressive when going through villages, especially after a few casualties started piling up.

If you watch any documentaries..And there is a good author called Tim O'Brien who even mentions many times where a squad would loose a soldier, walk upto a random Animal, or even some South Vietnamese civilians, and just terrorize/unload on them with bullets.

I suppose its true when they say that at the end of the day, the man with the gun is always in charge.

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

We'll probably try to build it up..Although it will not work out too well.

I'm sure we will try to stop their Opium production though. We will probably pressure them into help stopping it anyways.

Who knows? Maybe they'll try putting buisnesses/manufactures in.

To be honest, I have no idea what the future of Afghanistan will be, but I think we will try to stop the Poppy trade.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Because they are willing to kill all that oppose them -we (and the British) were notrawsavon

Actually, in Vietnam, the US acted pretty forcefully in many situations. My Lai - They were told that the 48th VC Batallion was in the city, and no civilians were in there. They went into the village, only to see civilians. A few, who felt they were to obey the orders, shot a few people. Next thing you know, it's a bloodbath.

Also, the soldiers were agressive when going through villages, especially after a few casualties started piling up.

If you watch any documentaries..And there is a good author called Tim O'Brien who even mentions many times where a squad would loose a soldier, walk upto a random Animal, or even some South Vietnamese civilians, and just terrorize/unload on them with bullets.

No doubt about that. Actually, I watched a brand new doucmentary on My Lai which came out yesterday on PBS, "American Experience: My Lai", and I completely agree with what the soldiers had to say. In the end though, if anyone was there to blame, it is the higher ranks who continued on the orders of killing them..The soldiers had to follow duty.

The soldiers had to follow duty.

taj7575

[QUOTE="taj7575"]The soldiers had to follow duty.

rawsavon

Not to mention all the horrible contraversial weaponry used such as chemical Agent orange, and the Napalm.

So. . . How's AP US History going? Haha, I kid, but we honestly did this in my class like a week ago. There's a political cartoon in our book about who to blame and it goes from Eisenhower down to Ford. The last part is Kissenger putting the blame on the American people for not believing in the war in the first place.

The premise of the war itself wasn't very good though. There were pressures against the war from tons of sources including within the army itself, no matter what Nixon thought of the "Silent Majority". Couple all of that with scandles regarding the Gulf of Tonkin and the Cambodia bombings and it was just a terrible time in American history.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]The soldiers had to follow duty.

rawsavon

I get to talk to a veteran of the My Lai massacre on Thursday (not personally, but he is coming in to speak to my class and take questions). I can't wait; Vietnam is such an interesting subject, so I'll try to get his view on a lot of things.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]The soldiers had to follow duty.

taj7575

I get to talk to a veteran of the My Lai massacre on Thursday (not personally, but he is coming in to speak to my class and take questions). I can't wait; Vietnam is such an interesting subject, so I'll try to get his view on a lot of things.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I could not imagine being in a tougher spot than that..at war, in a foreign land, seeing your 'brothers' slaughtered, ordered to terrible things.

RadecSupreme

I get to talk to a veteran of the My Lai massacre on Thursday (not personally, but he is coming in to speak to my class and take questions). I can't wait; Vietnam is such an interesting subject, so I'll try to get his view on a lot of things.

You'd be surprised. For them, teaching Vietnam to others is a special occasion. My school has a day to commemorate veterans, and the vets stay after for a lunchin and kids from the higher history classes get to go and see them. Our teacher told us about how some of these vets buy a suit for this day. It's really a big day for them.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] There wasn't an election because the U.S. stopped any election from happening. The VC were seen as liberators in South Vietnam.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Why would South Vietnam support the Viet Cong that murdered them by the thousands and left millions homeless?Snipes_2

The Vietcong killed the people that opposed them. Their main atrocities were after the war anyways.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="taj7575"]The soldiers had to follow duty.

taj7575

I get to talk to a veteran of the My Lai massacre on Thursday (not personally, but he is coming in to speak to my class and take questions). I can't wait; Vietnam is such an interesting subject, so I'll try to get his view on a lot of things.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I could not imagine being in a tougher spot than that..at war, in a foreign land, seeing your 'brothers' slaughtered, ordered to terrible things.

rawsavon

I get to talk to a veteran of the My Lai massacre on Thursday (not personally, but he is coming in to speak to my class and take questions). I can't wait; Vietnam is such an interesting subject, so I'll try to get his view on a lot of things.

We actually saw him for a bit earlier in the year, and he actually seemed pretty calm when he first came to visit us; he was a pretty nice guy. But you could tell..By the way he felt in general, that there was something in him that wasn't comfortable.

Try watching American Experience:My Lai one of these days dude. It premiered on PBS yesterday, but my class got an early look into it, because the soldier coming in is a freind of my teachers, and he was also in the video. He was in the 1st platoon.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

I get to talk to a veteran of the My Lai massacre on Thursday (not personally, but he is coming in to speak to my class and take questions). I can't wait; Vietnam is such an interesting subject, so I'll try to get his view on a lot of things.

taj7575

We actually saw him for a bit earlier in the year, and he actually seemed pretty calm when he first came to visit us; he was a pretty nice guy. But you could tell..By the way he felt in general, that there was something in him that wasn't comfortable.

Try watching American Experience:My Lai one of these days dude. It premiered on PBS yesterday, but my class got an early look into it, because the soldier coming in is a freind of my teachers, and he was also in the video. He was in the 1st platoon.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Because the South Vietnamese government wasn't exactly the most popular institution in the world.taj7575

The Vietcong killed the people that opposed them. Their main atrocities were after the war anyways.

We're talking war here, all deaths are in vain regardless of the outcome.

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

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I'm pretty sure it was better than being slaughtered and left homeless.

Snipes_2

The Vietcong killed the people that opposed them. Their main atrocities were after the war anyways.

Thats obvious...Like I pointed out before, atrocities are common during war.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I imagine it will be tough for him to speak about...it is fascinating, but a very sad time periodrawsavon

We actually saw him for a bit earlier in the year, and he actually seemed pretty calm when he first came to visit us; he was a pretty nice guy. But you could tell..By the way he felt in general, that there was something in him that wasn't comfortable.

Try watching American Experience:My Lai one of these days dude. It premiered on PBS yesterday, but my class got an early look into it, because the soldier coming in is a freind of my teachers, and he was also in the video. He was in the 1st platoon.

Very sad, especially when you hear the survivors of the massacre talk...It is very emotional.

I do recommend you check it out though rawsavon. It's well wourth watching. It's about 1hr30minutes just incase you were wondering how long it was.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

The Vietcong killed the people that opposed them. Their main atrocities were after the war anyways.

taj7575

Thats obvious...Like I pointed out before, atrocities are common during war.

Ah, Veitnam. The Vietnam war represents one of the worst failures of American statesmanship and diplomacy. The sad truth is that the USA could have won that "war" without firing a single shot or inflicting any casualties on the Vietnamese.

Ho Chi Minh himself was not really a communist. To the contrary, he was a nationalist, which ideologically puts him at odds with communism. He repeatedly appealed to the USA to support Vietnam's struggle for independence against France. Harry Truman, who in all honesty was one of our worst statesmen to ever reside in the White House, rejected all of Ho Chi Minh's pleas. Ho Chi Minh avoided relations with Mao's PRC and the USSR for as long as he could, hoping that the USA would eventually see the justice in Vietnam's struggle for independence.

America's intransigence on the matter of Vietnam's independence forced Ho Chi Minh to seek help from wherever he could in order to win independence for his nation. The only nations willing to provide that help were the Communist bloc. He eventually asked the communists for help, and they agreed, but on one condition, that Ho Chi Minh's struggle be redefined from a nationalist one into a communist one. Desperate for help, Ho Chi Minh agreed. The help was provided, and Ho Chi Minh's forces secured the retreat of French forces from Indochina. By the time that North and South Vietnam were created, it was too late for Ho Chi Minh to turn back from his allegiance to communist bloc. The help had been provided and promises were made that must be kept.

It's really sad, because if Truman had listened to Ho Chi Minh's pleas in the first place, then the Vietnam war would not have happened. We would have only upset the French, and since the French were always upset with us anyways, it wouldn't have been a problem.

Quickly!! Tell president Johnson now!xTheExploited

LBJ, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?

im sorry that is just the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of johnson followed by this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA

Ah, Veitnam. The Vietnam war represents one of the worst failures of American statesmanship and diplomacy. The sad truth is that the USA could have won that "war" without firing a single shot or inflicting any casualties on the Vietnamese.

Ho Chi Minh himself was not really a communist. To the contrary, he was a nationalist, which ideologically puts him at odds with communism. He repeatedly appealed to the USA to support Vietnam's struggle for independence against France. Harry Truman, who in all honesty was one of our worst statesmen to ever reside in the White House, rejected all of Ho Chi Minh's pleas. Ho Chi Minh avoided relations with Mao's PRC and the USSR for as long as he could, hoping that the USA would eventually see the justice in Vietnam's struggle for independence.

America's intransigence on the matter of Vietnam's independence forced Ho Chi Minh to seek help from wherever he could in order to win independence for his nation. The only nations willing to provide that help were the Communist bloc. He eventually asked the communists for help, and they agreed, but on one condition, that Ho Chi Minh's struggle be redefined from a nationalist one into a communist one. Desperate for help, Ho Chi Minh agreed. The help was provided, and Ho Chi Minh's forces secured the retreat of French forces from Indochina. By the time that North and South Vietnam were created, it was too late for Ho Chi Minh to turn back from his allegiance to communist bloc. The help had been provided and promises were made that must be kept.

It's really sad, because if Truman had listened to Ho Chi Minh's pleas in the first place, then the Vietnam war would not have happened. We would have only upset the French, and since the French were always upset with us anyways, it wouldn't have been a problem.

dkrustyklown

Good post..Ho Chi Minh really had to become a communist for his freedom. He was truly just a Vietnamese nationalist fighting for freedom. FDR supported Ho Chi Minh, but Truman, as he did with many other things, handled it awfully.

Oh, and dealing with the French, I don't think it would've hurt our relationship if they did pull out, because just like the US, the French morale got low quickly. Besides, they didn't have too big of a support from the people themselves.

Good post..Ho Chi Minh really had to become a communist for his freedom. He was truly just a Vietnamese nationalist fighting for freedom. FDR supported Ho Chi Minh, but Truman, as he did with many other things, handled it awfully.

Oh, and dealing with the French, I don't think it would've hurt our relationship if they did pull out, because just like the US, the French morale got low quickly. Besides, they didn't have too big of a support from the people themselves.

taj7575

Truman made several horrible foreign policy decisions. Some of his decisions were so bad that there is still some speculation that he was a communist agent working on behalf of Stalin. During his presidency, not only were terrible decisions made, such as the one to reject Ho Chi Minh's pleas for help, but the US State department and department of defense were flooded with Soviet spies. The circumstances under which the USSR gained access to the Manhattan Project are higly suspicious. I won't go so far as to support such speculation, however, because I actually just believe that Truman was incompetent, but just the mere fact that such speculation exists shows how bad some of his decisions were.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Good post..Ho Chi Minh really had to become a communist for his freedom. He was truly just a Vietnamese nationalist fighting for freedom. FDR supported Ho Chi Minh, but Truman, as he did with many other things, handled it awfully.

Oh, and dealing with the French, I don't think it would've hurt our relationship if they did pull out, because just like the US, the French morale got low quickly. Besides, they didn't have too big of a support from the people themselves.

dkrustyklown

Truman made several horrible foreign policy decisions. Some of his decisions were so bad that there is still some speculation that he was a communist agent working on behalf of Stalin. During his presidency, not only were terrible decisions made, such as the one to reject Ho Chi Minh's pleas for help, but the US State department and department of defense were flooded with Soviet spies. The circumstances under which the USSR gained access to the Manhattan Project are higly suspicious. I won't go so far as to support such speculation, however, because I actually just believe that Truman was incompetent, but just the mere fact that such speculation exists shows how bad some of his decisions were.

Yeah..He was not good at all with many things he handled..Also with FDR dying, and Truman not knowing anything, and Churchill being voted out of office (*sigh*), it gave way for Stalin to break all the promises he made with Churchill and FDR and basically gave him the power to do what he wanted with Eastern Europe.

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

Well... technically we're still at war with N. Korea.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] Containment of communism -- same reason why Korea gets a W in the history books.coolbeans90

Well... technically we're still at war with N. Korea.

Maybe. I heard so. Sooo what would they have won?

Quickly!! Tell president Johnson now!xTheExploited

:lol:

I love it when the very first response makes me lol. The thread should just end there.

Ha ha, you're kidding yourself buddy. America was fighting the war in Vietnam as they are doing with Afghanistan right now. Stupidly. The Vietkong and the Northern Armies fought a guerrilla war, something Americans don't seem to understand. Just because they had bigger weapons did not mean the Vietkong just died. They killed Americans off one by one, and America would never have won. Simple as that.optiow

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] nope, historians say Korea was a draw...........lordreaven

Well... technically we're still at war with N. Korea.

Yhey think we'll just give up after 60 years of war? Hell no. Unconditional surrender. :P

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

You're missing the fact that politicians were micromanaging the war instead of allowing the generals to conduct it, and not all of the superior officers were competent in matters of warfare.

[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.

You're missing the fact that politicians were micromanaging the war instead of allowing the generals to conduct it, and not all of the superior officers were competent in matters of warfare.