|
Quote:
|
hmm... we did evacuate vietnam hanging onto the runners of helicopters. I guess in your youth you saw pictures of people hanging from the helicopters but couldn't tell the difference between Vietnamese and U.S. Military. Those were Vietnamese trying to get out. The war was over, we were already out by then, I think the pictures you saw as a kid were when the people were leaving the Embassy. Millions of North Vietnamese died in that conflict that we weren't allowed to win. They were just about at their end after TET. about the helicopters, i was speaking figuratively. we bugged out, end of story. we lost, that was my point. you have evidence about them being at their end after TET? i doubt it. the communists got about half of korea. But they didn't get the other half. Where does that say we got our a$$es kicked? pretty big concession, don't you think? a long drawn out war, lots a casualties, nothing to show for it but half of a country we don't want or need. our soldiers are being killed in iraq by bombs made with aluminum cans and shape charges fired from pipes and detonated with cell phones. Your point? my point is that they may have lost the battle, but they haven't lost. don't you find it interesting that the best equipped military in the world, ours, is getting a black eye from things that one can make in their kitchen? what part of our leaving vietnam wasn't about us with our tails between our legs? What did you want us to do, nuke them? um.... not sure how that applies. every military debacle we get involved in is compared to our efforts in vietnam. So, do you think this is Vietnam? if so, why? what do you mean by 'this'? barack and/or the 'beast'? iraq? the governor of utah? this forum? this thread? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
A lot of military historians, from the US and Vietnam will tell you that the Vietnamese were on the cusp of defeat. None other than the commander of the NVA Gen. Giap has stated so in several quotes. Google is your friend cuz. |
Quote:
2. The only firm NO in the Snopes article is that it was not mentioned by Cronkite. (meaningless) 3. Greg Lewis says "an article in a piece about Kerry " was incorrect. Could he be a little more specific? Newsmax vs Snopes? I'll take Newsmax every time. Snopes is so slanted they should call it Slopes. |
Quote:
actually, the folks on this forum and snopes.com are my friends, bro. read the previous posts. as for china being our friends, wikipedia is my friend: Vietnam War Main article: Vietnam War The People's Republic of China's involvement in the Vietnam War began in 1949, when the communists took over the country. The Communist Party of China provided material and technical support to the Vietnamese communists. In the summer of 1962, Mao Zedong agreed to supply Hanoi with 90,000 rifles and guns free of charge. After the launch of "Rolling Thunder", China sent anti-aircraft units and engineering battalions to North Vietnam to repair the damage caused by American bombing, rebuild roads and railroads, and to perform other engineering work. This freed North Vietnamese army units for combat in the South. Between 1965 and 1970, over 320,000 Chinese soldiers fought the Americans along side the North Vietnamese Army. The peak came in 1967, when 170,000 troops served there. China lost 1,446 troops in the Vietnam War. The US lost 58,159. |
Quote:
|
Who said china was our friend?
Excerpt of interview of Bui Tin, Colonel NVA, General Staff: "Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory? A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us." "Q: What about the results? A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm |
no one has answered my thread specific and on-topic question: does anyone here REALLY believe that obama is the ACTUAL antichrist?
off to work i go. have fun and play nice! |
Quote:
From the NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story... Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004 10:25 p.m. EST Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S. The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory. In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North. That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face." "People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity. "The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam. "John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said. |
Americans are ignorant...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And I hope jesus gets his butt kicked again. |
Quote:
|
So you guys are willing to believe as gospel the words of an ex-Vietcong general? He couldn't have an agenda with his comments, could he? Naw...he must be telling the truth. :p
I thought you guys didn't like the Vietcong...now you're quoting them. Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows... |
''according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.''
consider the source [the same guy who sold arms to iran to fix an election and keep our embassy's people captive longer then needed] I thought trading with the enemy = treason but I guess thats OK if you are a NEO-CON and when did Oliver North become a '' historian '' ? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know someone who was there. Who was praying for the US to stop the vicious, evil Viet cong. Someone who saw the horrors and atrocities that were being carried out by the cong. He's told me about it and he has the scars to prove it. He was wounded while fighting the animals who were murdering everyone in his government, including their wifes and children. He told me of the systematic murder by the cong of everyone associated with the news media, the education system, it goes on and on. It wasn't as simple as a struggle between the west and the communists. It was the brutal extermination of a country. Yet the liberals here seem to have a nice rosy picture painted in their fantasy world that all that stuff really didn't happen. Say hello to Jane Fonda for us. She's just as delusional about what was going on there. |
|
How does the brutal extermination of a country "threaten our way of life, system of government, our values"? If that is the case there are quite a few places we should be fighting...
I'm not downplaying the atrocities that took place in SE Asia, and I never said they didn't happen. Just noting the selective agendas that get followed under the guise of "protecting America." And if you don't think the US govt has done some nasty things in foreign countries, then you might be enjoying a nice rosy picture as well... Many of those that opposed the war believed they were in fact "protecting America." And what is interesting is that if you read what Giap said, he talks about how democracy is in fact what lost the war. We have a country where there is public discourse and people are allowed to dissent. That dissent influenced policy. We lost a war because of it (so some would say), but that is part of a democracy. Totalitarian regimes are usually pretty good at fighting wars in foreign lands... |
nynor
The peak came in 1967, when 170,000 troops served there. China lost 1,446 troops in the Vietnam War. The US lost 58,159. The North Vietnamese lost more than 2 million, our peak troops in country was 1968 when LBJ had 500,000 there. |
Quote:
Lets talk about Vietnam first. Here's a direct quote from the memoirs of General Nguyen Vo Giap, commanding general of the North Vietnamese army. He was 2nd in charge of North Vietnam answering only to Ho Chi Minn. He was the top military commander of the NVA during the entire war. Lets see what he had to say: Quote:
Now onto Korea: Most folks don't know that the Korean war actually started before the end of WWII. Japan had annexed Korea just after the turn of the century and had occupied the country until Russia invaded in August 1945. The US was busy fighting the Japanese and the Soviets were still in very bad shape after fighting the Germans, so they both agreed not to start another fight. later than year, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to administer the country under the U.S.-Soviet Joint Commission, as termed by the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers. It was agreed that Korea would govern itself independently after four years of international oversight with both the U.S. and the USSR approved Korean-led governments in their respective halves, the north favoring communism and the south a democratic government. In 1950 the United States said that Korea was not their problem and asked the UN to take over. This was the weakness the soviets and Stalin were waiting for. Quote:
In June 1950 they attacked. South Korea had about 150,000 soldiers and a handful of tanks. North Korea, alongside Chinese soldiers armed with soviet weapons and with soviet airplanes, attacked with almost 1/2 a million soldiers. While the politicians were arguing at the UN, south Korea was falling to the communists. At the time it was also known that the communists intended to keep going, invading Taiwan as soon as South Korea fell and then onto Vietnam, Laos, etc. We didn't want to fight another war but we couldn't sit back and watch as country after country was attacked, pillaged, and raped. We sent in troops, but too small of a group to have a chance. They got spanked and the US commanding general was taken prisoner. The soviets had stolen 90% of the country. That's when we got pissed. We started bombing the north, we started cutting off their supply lines from China and from the USSR, and we sent in enough troops to get the job done. We started kicking butt and taking names and drove the bad guys way up past the 38th parallel, almost all the way to the Chinese border. China was worried that we wouldn't stop as they knew that we knew they were doing in Korea, so they called up the people volunteer army, and sent in an additional 300k or so soldiers. No one knows exactly how many Chinese soldiers we were fighting but most people say we were outnumbered at least 3 to 1. but we were still holding our own. Eventually the call for peace talks brought both sides to the table. They finally agreed to re-establish the demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel, right where it was. The entire communist block attacked us, and they gained absolutely nothing. it was a stalemate. They gained nothing and we stopped them from taking south-east Asia by force. But you say we got our butts kicked. Try not to type things that aren't true. We will call you on it every time and you'll end up looking foolish. |
Quote:
When an opposing superpower intends to actively over-throw and absorb the countries of the world one by one until the freedoms we enjoy no longer exist, that could be considered a threat to us. General Giap was partially correct when he says that democracy cost us the war, the liberal bleeding heart unrealistic fools cost us the war by using the same democracy against those whe were fighting to preserve democracy. Isn't irony Ironic? Our brave members of the military were fighting for democracy so that the liberals could abuse it and use it against the military. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you really believe this was the primary and over-riding reason that we went to Vietnam? I would submit that this is a convenient reality that was useful rationalization for a gullible public (and/or revisionist history). Again, if that is our criteria, then why didn't/don't we go into other places? Vietnam was about "stopping communism" and an excuse to build up the military industrial complex (ie, $$$). There may have been good will/intentions by some individuals, but by the govt and military leaders? You've got to be kidding... The bottom line is that a lot of people in this country didn't/don't give a damn if another country is attacked, pillaged, raped, etc. They do care about making lots of money and lived in fear that the "commies" would take over the world. But I think that the latter is actually all about the former anyway. |
Quote:
full circle |
Quote:
that comes from some lieing neo-cons blog neo-con's sure do love the big lie but I already found that ''QUOTE'' to be BS now we did win every battle with our US troops in the war and never got beat but the true General Nguyen Vo Giap ''QUOTE'' is ''we fought one day longer'' as they never had to beat the USA just out last them now if you and the other neo-conned wanted to send your sons and funds to support the south viets just know that the war would still be on going today 30+ years on now on to Korea few if any Chinese were in the first wave and not 500k of them almost all were N Korean sure they had russian and Chinese equipment the USA and UN troops lost at first to the N Korean army but after MacA invaded at inchon they chased the mostly N Korean troops up to near the Chinese border THEN the Chinese troops did pour in and they did push our side back down to the 1/2 way line at the 38th parallel where the whole war started and ended |
I think that all you guys who keep talking about "winning" in Vietnam are nuts. Truly nuts.
What would winning in Vietnam have looked like? A US vassel state? Another Hawaii? It's like Iraq - you go in ham-fisted without the remotest idea what the peace could possibly look like. The point you keep missing is that the North Vietnamese were fighting an anti-colonial war. They had history and the moral high ground on their side. You guys were the colonial invaders, trying to prop up the remnants of a colonial regime that had long since lost any relevance in the context of the larger historical forces that were in play. I'll say it again: You deserved to lose. You had no business being there in the first place. The right side won. History has borne that out. And you blame the fact that you lost on Kerry and Fonda? Delusional Nutters! Peace and goodnight. |
Dottore - actually, depending on who you speak with, we were cleaning up for the French after they high-tailed it out of there in the late 1950s. They're who started the colonizing. N. Vietnamese start making socialist/communist rhetoric, and we freaked out about the whole region turning red, and as a consequence, let the bombs fly.
As for Iraq=Vietnam. History will bear that out as well. |
Quote:
All this rubbish about domino theory is just laughable! Imagine if the commies had had a domino theory about countries going "free market", and using this as an excuse for armed aggression against sovereign nations. The first time I saw the Vietnam War memorial in Washington I was blown away. All those men lost because of an idiotic foreign policy! Dead for absolutely nothing. Ridiculous! And still there are nutters on this board who claim you could have won, but for John and Jane. Unbelievable. |
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SkzV5AIK8iM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SkzV5AIK8iM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
|
Quote:
Although he was a prime architect of the Vietnam War and repeatedly overruled the JCS on strategic matters, McNamara gradually became skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam, a claim he would publish in a book years later. He also stated later that his support of the Vietnam war was given out of loyalty to administration policy. He traveled to Vietnam many times to study the situation firsthand and became increasingly reluctant to approve the large force increments requested by the military commanders. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course he's vilified by the right, because he regrets his role in the Vietnam War, but I think its just proof that he was one of the rare politicians with a conscience. |
True. McNamara, at least, didn't fall as hard from grace as our last Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, who lacked conscious in spades, and had to his very last day, no regrets about Iraq: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061109/ai_n16849882
But Point #2 about the "Nutters." Those who blame H'wood actors for the fall of Vietnam seem to forget that President Nixon (Republican), was the true driving force in getting us out of Vietnam. Of course, he was out of office when most of the troops left, which happened under Ford, Nixon's successor, and also a Republican. So, in a sense, if one wants to blame Vietnam's fall on two iconic individuals, those should be Nixon and Ford. IMO, both men did the right thing toward ending our part in the conflict. |
Quote:
The last American troops left Vietnam March 29, 1973, Nixon was still President. Ford had nothing to do with it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/sq...arge-lousy.jpg |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website