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.
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
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,401
- 14,797
- 146
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...
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.
The politicians would not let the military win.
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.
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
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?
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter