posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:30 AM
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The United States defeated the Viet Cong during Tet 1968 and by the time of the US withdrawal, the North Vietnamese Army was for all practical
I think it can be argued that the Viet cong were 'defeated' in terms of how many casualties they sustained ( proving unsustainable as it was) but
what about the PAVN/NVA? I mean was it not obvious that when the US forces had left the war would escalate until Vietnam was re-united? If the Viet
cong were 'defeated' how did the ARVN, who did most of the fighting before, during and after US ground involvement, take around 20 thousand combat
deaths in each year from 1969-1971 as US troops numbers were systematically reduced? Why did the 'defeated' NVA manage to launch a massive invasion
of South Vietnam in 1972 when there were still more than a hundred thousand American soldiers present?
So, in reality the US won the ground war in Vietnam.
That's like saying that you won the football game in the first half by refusing to count the goals scored against you in the second half when you
chose to go home. In pure terms the US could not and did not win the war in vietnam as the ARVN did most of the fighting AND dying taking 1.2 million
casualties ( around 250 000 of which are deaths) before the countries were re-unified.
What we did not win was the war at home against the criminals who turned our nations streets and campuses into war zones.
Actually the people who turned those places into war zones where the same drafted US soldiers who got sent to Vietnam& killed four students at Kent
State University and two other students at Jackson State University. You can't have war zones without people shooting and the protestors where not
Will there ever come a time when you will start wondering WHY people all over the US were protesting this war? Why they just could not understand why
the US government ( especially after the pentagon papers exposed the decision making processes they employed) wanted to fight this war half way around
The US pulled out our last combat troops in April of 1975. It would be another two years before Saigon finally fell.
It might have fallen in 197-1972 if not for the presence of US troops and the massive air support ( linebacker operations) for which the North had no
counter. If the US kept up the massive funding of the earlier years the South would in my opinion have held longer with or without the massive air
support but since the US presidents who promised the South that resources were largely thinking of themselves and not South Vietnam they did not keep
their aid promises.Saigon fell very soon afterwards in the fall of 1975 only about a year and a half after the last US troops had left not many
months after the millions of dollars of aid ceased arriving.
Those Americans who wanted the US to "stop the war" and claimed that their hearts bled for the suffering of the Vietnamese people never
blinked an eye or expressed so much as a word of regret when the Communists murdered millions in Southeast Asia following the US
Because the claims of millions murdered are largely fiction dreamed up by the same people who wanted to 'destroy' communism ( which Vietnam wasn't)
with the casualties that did happen largely the consequence of the US escalation of the conflict into Cambodia who stands to this day as the most
heavily bombed country on Earth. If the US did not secretly , hiding the action from the US congress, bomb&invade Loas and Cambodia the Khmer Rouge
would very probably never have gained the power the eventually did. But you will just see this as the rest of the world laying blame on the US which
the rest of us condemns for never accepting responsibility for the consequences of it's imperial actions.
I would imagine that if the US were like the Third Reich, war protesters would have been systematically murdered, so things might have turned
out differently under those circumstances.
Well at least we can agree on that. Would you have wanted that so that your country could bomb and destroy whichever countries it wanted to? I mean
that's how it looks when you wish to defend the actions of the US government that never had a mandate for the war in Vietnam.