If the US had the weapons and technology of today during

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jtvang125
Without resorting to nukes I don't think the outcome would be very much different than before. Those VC were tough little SOBs.

I agree. We had the technology to anhilate the Vietnamese back in the '60s and '70s.

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
Depends, would we have all the same liberal whining?

If there was a draft, yes, if not more so. If not, then it would be about the same level as it is currently for Dick and Bush's Excellent Adventure.

Wasn't there as much criticism back then as now?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: jtvang125
Without resorting to nukes I don't think the outcome would be very much different than before. Those VC were tough little SOBs.

I agree. We had the technology to anhilate the Vietnamese back in the '60s and '70s.

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
Depends, would we have all the same liberal whining?

If there was a draft, yes, if not more so. If not, then it would be about the same level as it is currently for Dick and Bush's Excellent Adventure.

Wasn't there as much criticism back then as now?

I think there was more. AFAIK, there aren't as many protests now, simply due to the lack of a draft. If there was a draft, there'd be tremendous protests - like in the '60s, as non-soldiers would run a big risk of being pushed through Bush's meat grinder.

 

[Taggart]

We have Chuck Norris now so yes.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

I think there was more. AFAIK, there aren't as many protests now, simply due to the lack of a draft. If there was a draft, there'd be tremendous protests - like in the '60s, as non-soldiers would run a big risk of being pushed through Bush's meat grinder.

55k dead in Vietnam, 2k in Iraq. It's not just the lack of a draft.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: J0hnny
I think the only type of wars the US can win today are WW2 type offensive engagements.

Well, we could have won Vietnam the same way we won WWII - by almost complete disregard for for what is today called the Law of Armed Conflict. By totally and utterly destroying the country. You never saw anything in Vietnam that approached the outright slaughter of the WWII such as the Tokyo fire bombings, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Colgne, etc. Combine that with, in the case of Germany, enough troops on the ground to basically completely occupy and control the country. In Japan, we pretty much burned the entire country to the ground. There wasn't the political or popular will for that kind of slaughter and expenditure of resources in what was largely an "optional" war. Add to that the Chinese or Russians possibly entering the war if we went that far as well.

 

[BoomerD]

The draft was a big part of why people protested so much. Like Iraq, people were divided on whether we belonged in the war or not, and since we were drafting people against their will, that created even more protests than today. I enlisted. Not because I thought it was a "right and just" war, but because it was my patriotic duty. We COULD have won the war by the late 60's IF the politicians would have let us. Bombing Hanoi and Haiphong would have been a good start. Closing the Ho Chi Minh trail completely would have made a big difference. The politicians refused to listen to their mitary leaders and wavered, letting public opinion affect their choices. You can't effectively wage war if your citizenry is against that war. The Iraq clusterfvck is the same. Too many people are against it, and we'll never win because of that. Very few politicians are willing to stick their neck out against the public opinion of their constituents. THAT will affect how they let their generals wage war. True, a politician in this country has to listen to the wishes of the people, since we are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people", and should perhaps listen to those people BEFORE waging a war in some foreign country that hasn't attacked us...

 

[mugs]

We could have easily won the war with the technology we had back then if we were willing to do what it would take to win, but we weren't.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: J0hnny
I think the only type of wars the US can win today are WW2 type offensive engagements.

Well, we could have won Vietnam the same way we won WWII - by almost complete disregard for for what is today called the Law of Armed Conflict. By totally and utterly destroying the country. You never saw anything in Vietnam that approached the outright slaughter of the WWII such as the Tokyo fire bombings, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Colgne, etc. There wasn't the political or popular will for that kind of slaughter in what was largely an "optional" war. Add to that the Chinese or Russians possibly entering the war if we went that far as well.

We could have started by invading the North.

 

[Strk]

2-4 million dead Vietnamese say our problem wasn't killing people.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Politics is the only reason we withdrew from Vietnam. We beat the VC like we owned them for the most part, even with the ChiComs and Soviets helping them.
The politicians would not let the military win.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Taggart
We have Chuck Norris now so yes.

We had Chuck Norris then. He might have even still been in the military.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: J0hnny
I think the only type of wars the US can win today are WW2 type offensive engagements.

Well, we could have won Vietnam the same way we won WWII - by almost complete disregard for for what is today called the Law of Armed Conflict. By totally and utterly destroying the country. You never saw anything in Vietnam that approached the outright slaughter of the WWII such as the Tokyo fire bombings, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Colgne, etc. There wasn't the political or popular will for that kind of slaughter in what was largely an "optional" war. Add to that the Chinese or Russians possibly entering the war if we went that far as well.

Yes. We were trying to defeat the Japanese and Germans. We were trying to "liberate" the Vietnamese and the Iraqis - and inconvienently that means leaving enough of them alive to thank us when we're done.

 

[Taggart]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Taggart
We have Chuck Norris now so yes.

We had Chuck Norris then. He might have even still been in the military.

Yeah well we were keeping him in reserve to fight the Rooskies back then, now he would be all up in the VC's grill 😛

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
The reason you lost Vietnam is the same reason you will lose the "war on terror". Because the more you kill, and by golly you did kill around 3 million in vietnam, about 1mill completely innocent, the more will hate you and be willing to join the fight.
Ofcourse you could've just killed them all, but that's reserved for imperialist terrorist states.
I'm still surprised nothing happened to the US after that massive slaughter of innocents during Vietnam.

Where do you get those irresponsible stats from? Is that what they teach you over in Denmark? I guess what we should have done was sit back and let them take it all. They'd be knocking on Denmark's door long before ours. The only reason Denmark is what it is today is because of the Brits (1945). When you can't defend yourselves w/o help you have no business being "surprised" when other countries (US) intervene in issues they shouldn't have to deal with. Without help, you are defenseless.

BTW... why did Denmark break nuetrality and join NATO?

 

[Mday]

vietnam was lost in the white house, imo. Yes the VCs were capable of a lot, but the US tech was enough to do make a difference. But the politicians made this a crap of a mess.

 

[Toasthead]

What do you mean...

We DID win.

 

[maddogchen]

if we invaded North Vietnam, we woulda won.