why did we lose vietnam?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: TheBDB

and they are having no affect at all

they sure have a big showing at all the big rallies, could they being a co-sponsor of many of them have anything to do with it?


nah......

Looks like those American Communists were the real patriots getting our ass out of a place we should haven't been in to begin with. Thank god for true patriots saving us from subversives such as yourself.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
OK, i know that we did not really lose, we just quit, but why did we have to quit? could we have won the war if things were done differantly?

No, we definitely lost. I'd call a loss of troops in the TENS OF THOUSANDS an absolute butt-kicking. We pulled out so it wasn't an official "loss," that's it. But the war, in principle, was a loss. The bottom line is that there was a rift in support for the war, the United States was not committed to the war, and lastly, our GI's were definitely not equipped or ready to fight a guerilla war against an enemy they couldn't even distinguish from the populace.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I'd call a loss of troops in the TENS OF THOUSANDS an absolute butt-kicking.

not when they lost MILLIONS.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Witling
Night Crawler. LBJ wouldn't fuly commit to victory? Didn't you fail to mention Nixon who took over after LBJ and ran the war for almost 8 more years, lying to Congress along the way?

Must be selective amnesia, it happens a lot in this forum.

 

[rufruf44]

Hard to win a war when you're doing it half-assed like the military and the govt did during Vietnam.
Operation Linebacker force the NV back to the bargaining table. Conduct that for the entire year and send them back to the stone age probably will change history.

Off course, then you might have the Chinese Red Army on the other side of the gun.

 

[Witling]

WinstonSmith, from one who was there, as they say in Viet Nam, Phuck you. Communists indeed!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Witling
WinstonSmith, from one who was there, as they say in Viet Nam, Phuck you. Communists indeed!

Think.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

Why did we lose Vietnam? Isn't it where the map says? I have no idea where it is then. I haven't seen it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
OK, i know that we did not really lose, we just quit, but why did we have to quit? could we have won the war if things were done differantly?

No, we definitely lost. I'd call a loss of troops in the TENS OF THOUSANDS an absolute butt-kicking. We pulled out so it wasn't an official "loss," that's it. But the war, in principle, was a loss. The bottom line is that there was a rift in support for the war, the United States was not committed to the war, and lastly, our GI's were definitely not equipped or ready to fight a guerilla war against an enemy they couldn't even distinguish from the populace.

We did not lose. We lost roughly 58,000. They lost more than 3 million.
IMO, a similar situation occurred in the "Black Hawk Down" situation in Somalia, where we lost 19 and they lost 2,000 and yet the American public still believes that we "lost".

The bottom line is that our will was weak in both scenarios. And the reason our will was weak was because we had very little to gain from winning, and they had everything to lose from losing. We risk a similar situation in Iraq.
Why does America fight wars like this, where we have little to gain from winning? Because it makes defense contractors a ton of money. There really is no other reason.

 

[DoubleL]

Well I know why we didn't win but I would like to see a post from at least one other combat vietnam veteran other than me

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
The War was lost because of these factors:

5. Politics: LBJ wouldn't fully commit to victory !

That's because he knew that the initial reason for a increase in hostilities was a lie. The Gulf of Tonkin incident as it was explained to the American people was a complete and total lie to overstate what happened there.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/727441/posts

The number one reason why we lost the war was because it was not our war to fight to begin with ! This was a French conflict that was all about colonialism when they were fighting it. Yet before the French got kicked out and left they installed what was seen to most Vietnamese as a pro-French corrupt puppet government that they knew would start a civil war. This was a French war that we were involved in and which we were left to deal with and instead of siding with the natives we side with the French. Hell Ho Chi Mien ( a man who looked up to U.S. presidents like Lincoln and Washington ) came to us for support after fighting off the Japanese during the post-WW2 in hopes to get the French out of Vietnam but we turned him away. Had we not sided with the French after WW2 there more then likely would of not been a Vietnam War and Ho Chi Mien along with Vietnam would at worst of turned to be democratic socialist state like some of the European countries we see today.

 

[MAW1082]

It's nearly impossible to gain the support of the population of a country when you bomb them back into the stone age. We indisciminantly bombed much of Cambodia and North Vietnam. WE ALSO USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS against the Vietcong. Vietnam, like Iraq, is a war that was probably nearly impossible to "win."

 

[Witling]

Winston, you say "Think, huh!" Does that mean that what you wrote was sarcasm too subtle for me? And, although I hate to say it, the answer to that question might be, "Yes."

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Had we not sided with the French after WW2 there more then likely would of not been a Vietnam War and Ho Chi Mien along with Vietnam would at worst of turned to be democratic socialist state like some of the European countries we see today.

well, as long as we can blame the french...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Witling
Winston, you say "Think, huh!" Does that mean that what you wrote was sarcasm too subtle for me? And, although I hate to say it, the answer to that question might be, "Yes."

You and I and a few others go back some ways. I am sure you remember hearing the same rhetoric as we do now some 30+ years ago. People who did not support this war, especially early on, were "Communists". Now people who have as much rememberence of those days as the Punic Wars are telling us what you and I and others did or did not. In a few years they will be telling us that we should have fought with Hitler against Stalin, and that although unpleasant, the sacrifice of some Jews would be worth the glorious liberation we would have brought the world with our collective Third Reich.

Make no mistake, I have no use for abusers from VN. However we fought the wrong war for the wrong reasons. I have no consolation when I think back on others who went before us except they usually died well.

You also remember that we wouldn't get fooled again. We didn't. Others have decided to pass judgement on us though. I never expected to hear such crap about VN, how the whole sorry affair would be reduced to the fault of "the opposition".

Stupid people bred, and it shows here.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Witling
Night Crawler. LBJ wouldn't fuly commit to victory? Didn't you fail to mention Nixon who took over after LBJ and ran the war for almost 8 more years, lying to Congress along the way?

After great efforts by the US to withdraw, and the establishment of a cease-fire on January 27th, 1973, American soldiers began leaving Vietnam for good. The North Vietnamese finally conquered South Vietnam in early 1975, totally ignoring the cease-fire and on July 2nd, 1976, North and South Vietnam were officially united as a single communist state. It had cost an estimated 2 million lives and the injury or disablement of many millions of others.

Nixon was elected in 68 and in January 1973, he announced an accord with North Viet Nam to end American involvement in Indochina.

Faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974, that he would resign the next day.

About 4 years you mean and by the time Nixon was elected the war was a mess.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: Witling
Night Crawler. LBJ wouldn't fuly commit to victory? Didn't you fail to mention Nixon who took over after LBJ and ran the war for almost 8 more years, lying to Congress along the way?

After great efforts by the US to withdraw, and the establishment of a cease-fire on January 27th, 1973, American soldiers began leaving Vietnam for good. The North Vietnamese finally conquered South Vietnam in early 1975, totally ignoring the cease-fire and on July 2nd, 1976, North and South Vietnam were officially united as a single communist state. It had cost an estimated 2 million lives and the injury or disablement of many millions of others.

Nixon was elected in 68 and in January 1973, he announced an accord with North Viet Nam to end American involvement in Indochina.

Faced with what seemed almost certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974, that he would resign the next day.

About 4 years you mean and by the time Nixon was elected the war was a mess.

As soon as America left the South Vietnamese Army rolled over like Bitches in heat and the so called South Vietnamese Patriots bailed on their country instead of staying and fighting the Commies. Of course they were given preferential treatment when our own Vetrans were bsh!t upon by the Republican Administration at the time!

 

[biostud]

Someone realized it would be insane to continue the war, unfortunately it was hundreds of thounds people to late.

 

[bauerbrazil]

Looks like for some idiots that win a war is when you kill more enemys, hmmm right!!!!!

 

[Witling]

Scores:

Winston 1 : Witling 0. I failed to realize that Winston was being sarcastic. My error. Because of passion, I flare first and think later about issues related to Viet Nam and Iraq.

NightCrawler 1 : Witling 1. Yes, your dates are right on Nixon. I remembered it being an issue in Nixon's re-election and gave him credit for too much presidency after his re-election. I assume that your observation in later posts that Nixon was President during part of the Viet Nam war is a grudging admission to the fact that you completely forgot to mention his contribution to the progress of the war. A curious omission for one who obviously has a good grasp of the facts of the era.

 

[fjord]

This question requires a complex discussion, but the short answer is:

We did not own the moral authority to be in Vietnam. Therefore we could not even conceive of using our overwhelming military superiority. We were wrong and we knew it.

Equally, we have no moral authority to be in Iraq.

 

[heartsurgeon]

we "lost" vietnam because the war was poorly managed by NcNamara and the Democrats...
we always had the military might to win the war, but with mismanagement by the Dems (lyndon johnson pres), the political will to contnue the war was lost in the u.s.
Nixon was elected on the platform of "Peace with Honor".
He brought Hanoi to the negotiating table by bombimg the crap out of them and the supply lines in cambodia ("Linebacker").
Kissenger then negotiated a cease-fire that should have ended the war.
American troops pulled out.
The DEMOCRATS in congress did a despicable thing, and blocked funding of ALL MILITARY ASSISTANCE to the South Vietnamize. This was a green light to the north vietnamize to invade the south, and without the resources to fight, the south was militarily defeated.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
It's nearly impossible to gain the support of the population of a country when you bomb them back into the stone age. We indisciminantly bombed much of Cambodia and North Vietnam. WE ALSO USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS against the Vietcong. Vietnam, like Iraq, is a war that was probably nearly impossible to "win."

Chemical weapons? Please tell me you aren't referencing agent orange.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

The DEMOCRATS in congress did a despicable thing, and blocked funding of ALL MILITARY ASSISTANCE to the South Vietnamize. This was a green light to the north vietnamize to invade the south, and without the resources to fight, the south was militarily defeated.

True, but it wouldn't have matterred. The South Vietnamese army was grossly incompetent, and nothing could save them. Would have just delayed the end.

Far more important would have been to negotiate a settlement that didn't leave NVA units in South Vietnam.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bauerbrazil
Looks like for some idiots that win a war is when you kill more enemys, hmmm right!!!!!

It isn't? You might want to think about what you just posted.

There are very few wars in history where the "winning" side suffered significantly more casualties than the "losing" side. Usually that only happens when a much larger nation attacks a much smaller nation, and the larger nation can afford the higher casualty rate. Otherwise, given 2 equally sized armies, the side with the higher casualty rate is eventually going to run out of soldiers.
The Vietnam War is almost unique in history in that the much larger nation suffered significantly fewer casualties, and still "lost".

Like I said, the issue was one of will. And of affordable cost. Wars are always about will and cost. Whichever side is willing to expend more cost (be it soldiers or weaponry), and is actually able to afford to do so, is usually the winner. While the US could have easily afforded to win the Vietnam War (and actually was winning the war while it was in it), it had no will to do so, as it had virtually nothing to win. When the perception of affordability got too high for US citizens, they pulled out. OTOH, the North Vietnamese had everything to lose. They were fighting to the death for their homeland. We were not. If we lost anywhere, we lost there. No where else.