How did US lose vietnam
- Thread starter USCoMmAnDo
- Start date
It was IMHO
#1 lack of support at home,
#2 lack of the will to fully commit (bombing the north etc..)
#3 the inability to fight THEM in the same what they were fighting US (terror tactic's and doing things OUR people and Gov. would never allow.
#4 The SOUTH Viet Nam peoples lack of commitment (most of them didn't care one way or another WHO was in charge. Including The SOUTH Viet military.
#1 lack of support at home,
#2 lack of the will to fully commit (bombing the north etc..)
#3 the inability to fight THEM in the same what they were fighting US (terror tactic's and doing things OUR people and Gov. would never allow.
#4 The SOUTH Viet Nam peoples lack of commitment (most of them didn't care one way or another WHO was in charge. Including The SOUTH Viet military.
1-3 is correct but i'd say you're wildly off on #4... the south viet ppl strongly cared about who was in charge...for some it meant life and death.. why do you think so many came to america when the VC took over?
Did we really lose? Or did we just withdraw our troops?
And how do you lose something when you just send in military units? It's not like war was declared or anything.
And how do you lose something when you just send in military units? It's not like war was declared or anything.
The people that were helping us and the middle class and elite cared I'm sure. But the common man, the guy in the rice paddy, I doubt HE cared much. And I'm sure there were A LOT more of THEM than the other folks. The guy in the paddy knew his life wasn't going to change much one way or the other. Mostly they just wanted to not die.
1 & 3 are good & close on 4, but you are out to lunch on 2.
#2 - more bombs was deployed over Vietnam than WWW II. The American tried to bomb Vietnam back to the stone age, but lack of support fromt the public & politic caused the failure.
Also, most GI & South Vietnam weren't into fighting, because they rather drink, smoke pot to forget the point less "conflict".
mostly political... could not use nukes or anything out of fear that Russia would take it personal... we were in the cold war and had to be very careful with what we did. In addition, they fought like crazy MF and we did not fight the same sick way. That is my feeling... not sure if it is correct.
Right, and they didn't let us Bomb Hanoi (SP). If they had let the military handle things as they wanted to and by they I mean the FOLKS back home (the Gov and popular opinion) The bombing would have hit some targets that MEANT something. As it was , we were mostly bombing jungle. So I'll have to stick by #3
And your right. Most of the guys in our military and the souths didn't want to be doing what they were doing. The North was Commited and the rest of us where just there. IMO
And your right. Most of the guys in our military and the souths didn't want to be doing what they were doing. The North was Commited and the rest of us where just there. IMO
<< Oy...you have a right to be an idiot. >>
Thank you for your intelligent reply.
I may not have the clear picture of the war, because it was 26 years ago?I was there, and in the middle of the war for 14 years of my life.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,791
- 17,417
- 146
<< 1 & 3 are good & close on 4, but you are out to lunch on 2.
#2 - more bombs was deployed over Vietnam than WWW II. The American tried to bomb Vietnam back to the stone age, but lack of support fromt the public & politic caused the failure.
Also, most GI & South Vietnam weren't into fighting, because they rather drink, smoke pot to forget the point less "conflict". >>
BS, our navy and airforce had their hands tied for the majority of the war when it came to bombing the north. The targets were picked by political reasons, not stratigic reasons. And our army had it's hands tied when it came to keeping land it had taken from the north. We took the same areas over and over, only to be pulled back for political reasons.
You know, you ought to learn about history from more than movies.
Scouzer
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2001
- 10,358
- 5
- 0
<<
<< Oy...you have a right to be an idiot. >>
Thank you for your intelligent reply.
I may not have the clear picture of the war, because it was 26 years ago?I was there, and in the middle of the war for 14 years of my life. >>
Just comments like that just hit a nerve...sorry. I just didn't want to go ranting so I made it brief
. I take it back.<< people write entire books on this you know. >>
Amen...
Trying to answer it here is just silly...
In short, our military was hampered by a goverment that wouldn't let them win...
More or less, that is the Cliff Note's version...
Jason
<< Right, and they didn't let us Bomb Hanoi (SP). >>
Hanoi weren't bombed according to the books/propaganda in the Western world, but what do they called the 2 weeks 24/7 B52 bomber run over Hanoi?I hope that they don?t marked it down as exercise/test runs.
I was in North Vietnam 3 months after the war and found Hanoi look okay, but did bared a lot of destructions due to the bombing. I don?t blame any countries over the war, but I blame their damned politicians. (My great grand parents were buried alive in their home when the American bombed Hanoi.)
I'm sorry to hear that lowtech!!
And I'm sure your right. A lot happened WE didn't hear about.
In my opinion and many others, we should have NEVER been there in the first place.
I think the whole war was to protect "OUR" interests in Viet Nam (rubber Mostly) and not so much to "save" the south Viet. people from communism. I think they are much better off now than they were under the government they had at the time. (as is the case a lot of the time in quite a few countries)
Just MY 2 cents worth
And I'm sure your right. A lot happened WE didn't hear about.
In my opinion and many others, we should have NEVER been there in the first place.
I think the whole war was to protect "OUR" interests in Viet Nam (rubber Mostly) and not so much to "save" the south Viet. people from communism. I think they are much better off now than they were under the government they had at the time. (as is the case a lot of the time in quite a few countries)
Just MY 2 cents worth
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 56,791
- 17,417
- 146
<<
<< Right, and they didn't let us Bomb Hanoi (SP). >>
Hanoi weren't bombed according to the books/propaganda in the Western world, but what do they called the 2 weeks 24/7 B52 bomber run over Hanoi?I hope that they don?t marked it down as exercise/test runs.
I was in North Vietnam 3 months after the war and found Hanoi look okay, but did bared a lot of destructions due to the bombing. I don?t blame any countries over the war, but I blame their damned politicians. (My great grand parents were buried alive in their home when the American bombed Hanoi.) >>
We stopped bombing Hanoi early in the war, and didn't start again until late in the war. Had we been smart, we would have wiped the city off the face of the earth, but we didn't... all in the name of politics.
Brutuskend - Thanks. I'm not sure if the current government is any better than previous, because they are worst or just as corrupted?but any thing is better than war.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter