It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Vietnam Win or Loss?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 09:09 AM
LMAO.. Yeh Ivan Drago.. absolute legend! The heardest bloke around.. well him of Clubber Lang. I'm sure Drago would win with that had right hook!

Ive got a good mind to give you a way above title!! lol

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:24 AM

posted by robertfenix: “A Political Loss . . We could have won militarily but pressure from the politicians back home prevented the use of the appropriate measures to win the "war." [Edited by Don W]

Who said “winning is not everything” in life? War is not a football game. America has to live in this world even if we would prefer not to. Rather than call it a “limitation” I’d prefer to think of it as a self imposed “restraint.” At some point in time we have to weigh the costs versus the gain. Every time we did that in Vietnam, the answer to WW2 type bombing in the North part was “no.” Fortunately.

Plain and simple we were handicapped like modern day Iraq . . youth movement in America started a grass roots to bring our troops home . . embarrassment to the politico's . . reduced soldier and family morale . . we lost sight of the objective . . why we were there . . became more how to stay in office . . look like the good guy . . led to the withdrawal of troops. [Edited by Don W]

Just because we had 30,000 nuclear bombs - back then - 6,000 now - does not mean we should have used any. Civilization, it’s called. Living together. Accommodating. Tolerating. Social and commercial intercourse. And etc. We must act responsibly, despite our own animal instincts. After all, ‘Nam was really not West of the Pecos.

We were not defeated but decided to "disengage" from the conflict. Many Many combat operations were called off due to the outcry about civilian casualties from the American people and international communities. [Edited by Don W]

U. S. Con. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States . . “

I think the Vietnam War was the beginning of the contemporary concept of the “Commander in Chief” as being a 6 star general with field command responsibilities, a concept being fully exploited by the current WH occupant. FDR was C in C of 16 million men and did not micro manage the war. Harry Truman best exemplified the Constitutional concept when he fired MacArthur and replaced him with Gen. Ridgeway. America’s C in C was never conceived to be a reincarnation of the 17th century’s Oliver Cromwell’s Lord Protector of England. Which frightening concept is being argued today out of the Oval Office. One man, vested with unlimited power! WoW! See

When you have a border conflict were you are trying to prevent the incursion of enemy forces across the border the best policy is to decimate the landscape and create a no mans land at the border, then you can see the enemy movements and stop them from a safe distance. [Edited by Don W]

As in East Berlin and then East Germany? A Berlin Wall? Did it work? Should we hire old, retired East German Vopos to man the Kill zone?

Multiple strafing runs by B-52's [carpet bombing] followed with A-10s and AC-130s would stop any enemy movements across the line . . you do it often enough and "hard" enough and eventually your enemy is no longer going to be willing to cross the line opting for long range "rifle" volleys which become easy targets from the air. But like usual our politicians become our military's worst enemy. [Edited by Don W]

Our military is subordinate to the politicians, like it or not. It has to be that way. Do not put blame for winning or losing wars on the military. It is not their blame to carry. Our military has performed magnificently except when necessary political considerations prevail over military expertise. As in the 2003 Second Punitive Expedition to Iraq.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by donwhite]

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:59 AM
Hi Don...

Not that I was in the INNER CIRCLE of the decision makers..... but from my personal perspective.... YES..... the military was NOT allowed to DO what they DO BEST. WHY? Two words.... CHINA and RUSSIA. The United States could not afford to start WWIII, so instead of doing what was done in IRAQ on a FULL SCALE battle plan....... a conservative battle was waged. Only when we began our B-52 bombings on Hanoi, did any serious aggression begin.... but it was quickly haulted when CHINA and RUSSIA began to make subtle threats of their increased involvement. TWO STEPS forward....ONE STEP back. Then ONE STEP forward, TWO STEPS back.

With the rising unpopularity of the Vietnam War both home, abroad and in Vietnam itself with the troops, the politicians and military heads knew it was the Titanic all over again.... and time was running out quickly.

Again, as has been already said in this thread.... Vietnam was not a win by any means. The communist simply outlasted us.

Just my two cents worth....


posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:13 PM
Vietnam was technically a "loss" for the U.S.,
but I believe we beat the spread.

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:45 PM

posted by Dave Rabbit: “Hi Don...Not that I was in the INNER CIRCLE of decision makers.....but from my personal perspective....YES.....the military was NOT allowed to DO what they DO BEST. WHY? Two words....CHINA and RUSSIA. The U. S. could not afford to start WW III . . “

Dave, I have not dealt with the underlying theme of those who are critical of tying the military’s hands in combat. That is the number of Avoidable and Unnecessary deaths our side has suffered because we waged a half-hearted war.

American military doctrine is to focus overwhelming force applied with breathtaking speed. Coordinated land, sea and air. And training, training and more training. This doctrine minimizes our losses and not an inconsequential consideration, the doctrine minimiizes the enemy's losses.

Using half our arsenal no doubt prolonged the war and cost many lives on both sides. That is not good. We need to address this phenomenon [limited war] to see how it can be avoided in the future. We can’t help Iraq. The end is already set, although maybe none of us can or will describe it or want to face it.

“ . . so instead of doing IRAQ on a FULL SCALE battle plan......a conservative battle was waged. Only when we began B-52 bombings on Hanoi, did serious aggression begin.... but it was quickly halted when CHINA and RUSSIA began to make subtle threats . . TWO STEPS forward....ONE STEP back. Then ONE STEP forward, TWO STEPS back. Again.... Vietnam was not a win . . The communist simply outlasted us. Just my 2 cents worth. Dave [Edited by Don W]

Last item first. I do not see Vietnam as part of the East West ideological struggle. Our leaders did, which is why we got where we did. Nowhere. Vietnam was pure nationalism. The Vietnamese were never enamored with the Chinese. In fact after the 1975 unification of Vietnam, there were several live fire border skirmishes with China. Your first item Dave, the thinly veiled threats from both the PRC and the USSR. Although neither would have sent troops to Vietnam, they could have created havoc in Korea or Taiwan or in Africa and so on, so that we would have had the same problem we have today, our military being stretched too thin to do the job right.

One more point, Dave. Newly liberated nations like Vietnam and earlier, Cuba, for examples, have to choose whether to be market capitalists or people socialists. You cannot be a capitalist if you have no capital. The only option open is to be a people socialist. Ho Chi Minh (as Fidel Castro) would have been a ‘dinosaur’ if that was what it took to make his country and his people free of foreigners.

[edit on 3/30/2006 by donwhite]

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 02:07 PM

posted by Enkidu: “Vietnam was technically a "loss" for the U.S., but I believe we beat the spread.

Well, if you meant our experience in Vietnam showed a lot of observers it was a good idea to leave us alone, then I’d say you are right. We spent well over $100 b. there, which I guess today would be closer to $1 T. on a lost cause. We gave up a lot of blood, too, 59,000 of our own and 1 to 3 million of them.

No other world power would be lightly or quickly inclined to engage the U.S. even on trivial matters. If we would drop more bombs in the jungle than were dropped in WW 2 - yes we did, Marg6043 - you know we are not to be trifled with. B52s flying out of Guam, some 2,000 miles one way, loaded with 80,000 pounds of anti personnel bombs, to be re-fueled in-flight going and coming, geez, every planeload of bombs must have cost $500,000 in JP4 alone! Not to mention the fuel used by 2 KC135s.

We may never know how many other “struggles” the PRC and USSR stayed out of after watching us in Vietnam.

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 08:04 PM
On this site ("above top secret"/"conspiracy", etc...) - I find it astounding that members tow the official line of anything, let alone the Vietnam war. And then argue from that standpoint, whether it was a win or loss. Ah, so the communist "domino" effect was slowed down so it was victory. The domino effect has been lynched by history as a marketing scam. And then quoting the official line about casualties - as tho thats reliable. C'mon man - next someones going to say Iraq 2 has been a victory cos Saddam was toppled. Jeeeez

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:07 PM

Can't speak for the others.... but like you just did here, I'm just voicing my opinion based on my three tours of Vietnam on a subject that I was personally involved in and was listed on the community board as a discussion topic. Personally. this subject has been hashed and re-hashed so many times over the last 36 years, since 1975..... I'm surprised that anyone even still cares... other than the VETS who SERVED THERE, the FAMILIES who lost FAMILY & FRIENDS there.... or a few people who NEVER had their own LIFE put in HARMS WAY.... who just want to ARMCHAIR an opinion like it was Monday Night Football. That just about covers it.

Not being argumentative with you..... just find this topic no more amazing than numerous others at ATS.

Take care!


posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by rogue1
I disagree with the forestlady's statement smoewhat. Sure the VC were excellent guerilla fighters, but they also benefitted from safe bases of operations. North Vietnm, Cambodia and Laos. These places were virtually off limits for political reasons.

Cambodia was bombed so thoroughly only years of terror under the Red Khmer could exceed the death toll caused by the US bombing.

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:38 AM
I still find it hard to understand how US administration tought it would be possible to contain Vietminh/VC with similar tactics that French used 10 years earlier. And how on earth they couldn't adapt to Anti-Guerilla warfare. US SF did a good job at the begining of the US direct involvement, and with right support and small well trained SF force could have stopped the infilitration to south. (at least a US SF veteran i knew said so)

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:41 AM
See American tv at its best this weekend:

posted by northwolf: “I still find it hard to understand how US administrations thought it would be possible to contain the Vietminh VC with similar tactics that French used 10 years earlier. And how on earth they couldn't adapt to anti-guerilla warfare. US Special Forces did a good job at the beginning of the US direct involvement . With right support a small well trained SF force could have stopped the infiltration to south. At least a US SF veteran I knew said so. [Edited by Don W]

The French Indo China colonial administration relied on a small cadre of Vietnamese collaborators. Local overseers. The French supported a puppet king named Bao Dai. It was all a sham, as far as the locals were concerned. Even the boundary lines between the places we know as Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam were drawn on a map in Paris by the French for administrative convenience. [Q. Does "indo" as in Indo China and Indo-nesia come from the same root? What's "indo" mean?]

OK, that said, NorthWolf. You hear the military is always fighting the “last war.” I do not mean to disparage the US Military by saying that. It really can’t be any other way, if you think about it. The US was just coming off the Korean War which was a re-play of proven WW2 tactics. It worked there.

I believe the US Army on the ground held its own against the guerrilla tactics. The real problem was that an overwhelming majority of people living in the South were against us. What we and our own SV puppet government had to offer the South Vietnamese - our label, not theirs - could not win the hearts and minds of the proud Vietnamese. North or south.

Sort of like in Iraq today, the locals may disagree with each other but they all agree on one point - at one level or another - the foreigners have got to go. This is not the 19th century. I’m afraid - for our soldiers sake - we are having another lesson taught to us in Iraq. The US survived in its pride and prestige after Vietnam, and we’ll survive after Iraq, too. Let’s get the heck out of Iraq, now. Not later. But now. Before we kill any more of them and lose more of our own.

Iraq is truly another Vietnam. A failed enterprise not due to the soldiers in the field, but due to the impure motives in the Oval Office and inadequate planning by DoD's Rumsfeld. Pure and Simple .

Q. If an election was held today, and Saddam ran against Geo W, who do you think would carry Iraq?

[edit on 4/6/2006 by donwhite]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in