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

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....

Dave

Vietnam was technically a "loss" for the U.S.,
but I believe we beat the spread.

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 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.

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

Credirt....

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!

Dave

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.

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)