- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Another history thread: How did we get involved in the Vietnam War?
Posted on 3/20/15 at 4:57 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 3/20/15 at 4:57 pm to Darth_Vader
Yet if fell two years later? There are two camps on this argument, I'm sure we could argue it all day. If they scaled to the level of the NVA it would maybe of worked. Just my opinion.
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 3/20/15 at 4:59 pm to Darth_Vader
i knew you'd been in this thread. It was only a matter of time. Probably took a while to find the info on wiki
Posted on 3/20/15 at 5:03 pm to Scream4LSU
quote:
Yet if fell two years later? There are two camps on this argument, I'm sure we could argue it all day. If they scaled to the level of the NVA it would maybe of worked. Just my opinion.
Those two years were critical. In that time the Soviets poured mountains of arms and supplies to the North while in that time the liberals in Congress would not even let the South have spare parts to keep their equipment in working order. The bottom like is the North was a vassal of the Soviets, the South was a vassal of the US. The Soviets stood by their vassal while the US abandoned theirs.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 5:04 pm to 13SaintTiger
shite like this only makes you look small and pathetic.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 5:10 pm to Darth_Vader
You don't start a plan that requires long term funding and bail out. Vietnamization wasn't going to be a get it going and they take it over thing. They had no economy to do so. That was the scale comment I made. If the Soviets via China were gonna spend you had to spend.
The same shite storm happened in Iraq. Billions sent there, we train them and bail out and leave them to it. Fell apart in months, run over by some gangs. I'm not even gonna get into the religious implications of internal fighting that undermined that army but in Vietnam they did not want to fight each other, book it. The common people sympathized with the northern guerrillas and the southern government did not have their support.
The same shite storm happened in Iraq. Billions sent there, we train them and bail out and leave them to it. Fell apart in months, run over by some gangs. I'm not even gonna get into the religious implications of internal fighting that undermined that army but in Vietnam they did not want to fight each other, book it. The common people sympathized with the northern guerrillas and the southern government did not have their support.
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 3/20/15 at 5:15 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO)
Posted on 3/20/15 at 5:24 pm to Wishnitwas1998
I think looking over the course of overall history, it was a pretty typical proxy war where two big powers get involved in another country's or countries' fight in an effort to better position themselves between one another.
I think we ended up getting a bit more directly involved in this one than most proxy wars,at least by US standards.
Still, while the casualties were pretty high for a US war (comes after CW, WWI and WWII in the number of casualties I think), historically speaking our casualties were like one country's one day casualties in wars like the Napoleonic ones.
I think we ended up getting a bit more directly involved in this one than most proxy wars,at least by US standards.
Still, while the casualties were pretty high for a US war (comes after CW, WWI and WWII in the number of casualties I think), historically speaking our casualties were like one country's one day casualties in wars like the Napoleonic ones.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 6:02 pm to Scream4LSU
quote:
Vietnamization was a total catastrophe, they were never going to be trained enough and have the fortitude to protect their own country and fight against other Vietnamese. These are rice farmers trying to build and army.
I don't know about this, just about everything I've read regarding the South Vietnamese Marines showed them in a very positive light as a legitimate fighting force.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 6:12 pm to Darth_Vader
This is such fricking bullshite. I wonder if you know better or if you're as dumb as the rest of the people trying to learn history on a message board.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 6:30 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Now TWO YEARS after the end of the war when the Soviets had rebuilt the NVA while the liberal progressive Democrats who controlled Congress had Cut of all aid to South Virtnam (despite the US being obligated by treaty to help them), the North started ANOTHER WAR and overran the South
This is the part of the story that the leftists and their historians never tell.
A Democratic Congress interfering in foreign policy, much like they did with the Boland Amendments, in both cases doing their best to aid their Communist allies.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 6:35 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Probably because Bush
Posted on 3/20/15 at 7:00 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
How did we end up in such a clusterfrick of a mess? I always thought it was to prevent the spread of communism by China, etc. but I saw in another thread that the French are the ones who originally got us involved
Can anyone expound on that?
Yes I can.
Two people, JFK and Robert Strange McNamara.
Back in 1962.
Body counts and horrible ROE.
Also, The US denying the VC and the NVA weren't in Cambodia and Laos.
Thankfully Nixon invading Cambodia in 1970.
The worst was Mr. Cronkite showing dead Americans and after TET saying the war was lost.
We kicked the VC and the NVA'S arse in TET.
ETA: Forgot one a-hole LBJ. He stopped the bombing over the 17th parellel. When we had them on the ropes.
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 3/20/15 at 7:50 pm to lsu480
quote:
The US lied about what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin.
And every fricker that lied if still around should be tried for murder.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 8:35 pm to Wishnitwas1998
It didn't help that we backed a colonial power when Ho Chi Minh repeatedly asked us for support for decolonization (citing our own Declaration of Independence) and then worked to cancel Geneva Accords-mandated democratic elections in 1956 because we were worried about the outcome. Plus ça change, plus la même chose.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 9:35 pm to brass2mouth
Yes a very small percentage of total ARVN military were well trained and highly capable. But as a whole they were not capable of operating using tactics that had been successful by combined US forces such as close air support artillery and infantry working in concert. Read on that and you will see what I mean.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 10:45 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Like 480 said, Gulf of Tonkin lies.
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 3/20/15 at 10:50 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
How did we end up in such a clusterfrick of a mess? I always thought it was to prevent the spread of communism by China, etc. but I saw in another thread that the French are the ones who originally got us involved
Both are true. We started out by supporting the French. When that failed, we put troops on the grounds and gradually escalated the war.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 10:50 pm to LSUinMA
quote:And the substance of your counterpoint is...?
This is such fricking bullshite. I wonder if you know better or if you're as dumb as the rest of the people trying to learn history on a message board.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 10:57 pm to USMCTiger03
The same as it was last August when this was debated here before, after the bogus video featuring Bruce Herschensohn circulated:
"Well, I was a history professor, so let me clear the air a bit here.
I'm not going to engage in a long and drawn out debate, but let me be the soon to be drowned out voice of reason in this sea of bullshite.
The Vietnam War was, in fact, a series of military victories for the United States. However, as President Kennedy said in 1963, speaking of South Vietnam, "in the final analysis, it is their war. They're the ones who have to win it or lose it."
That was true when Kennedy was still alive, and it was the reality that Johnson faced later. McNamara and everyone else advised him, accurately, that South Vietnam could not win the war on its own, and that American withdrawal, regardless of whatever supplies we provided (nice try, Bruce), would result in South Vietnam's defeat. That is why Johnson ultimately decided to commit American combat forces.
Nixon understood this as well, and knew well that his Vietnamization policy would fail just as it had under Kennedy and Johnson. He continued American involvement for another four years trying to get a reasonable settlement.
If there's one thing that is the silver bullet against this ridiculous theory in the video that the war was won until the Democrats fricked it up, it is the reaction to the accords by the South Vietnamese government. Look it up. They were terrified, because they knew what it meant for them. Nixon and Kissinger's agreement with North Vietnam, not later congressional action, doomed South Vietnam. Or rather, it sealed their fate, because they were doomed all along.
As much as the former Nixon assistant in the video would like you to believe otherwise, it was not the fault of the Democratic Party. Nor was it the fault of the Republican Party. There were two Democratic and two Republican presidents involved in Vietnam after the French defeat, and none of them found success there. It was a national tragedy, not a partisan one. "
"Well, I was a history professor, so let me clear the air a bit here.
I'm not going to engage in a long and drawn out debate, but let me be the soon to be drowned out voice of reason in this sea of bullshite.
The Vietnam War was, in fact, a series of military victories for the United States. However, as President Kennedy said in 1963, speaking of South Vietnam, "in the final analysis, it is their war. They're the ones who have to win it or lose it."
That was true when Kennedy was still alive, and it was the reality that Johnson faced later. McNamara and everyone else advised him, accurately, that South Vietnam could not win the war on its own, and that American withdrawal, regardless of whatever supplies we provided (nice try, Bruce), would result in South Vietnam's defeat. That is why Johnson ultimately decided to commit American combat forces.
Nixon understood this as well, and knew well that his Vietnamization policy would fail just as it had under Kennedy and Johnson. He continued American involvement for another four years trying to get a reasonable settlement.
If there's one thing that is the silver bullet against this ridiculous theory in the video that the war was won until the Democrats fricked it up, it is the reaction to the accords by the South Vietnamese government. Look it up. They were terrified, because they knew what it meant for them. Nixon and Kissinger's agreement with North Vietnam, not later congressional action, doomed South Vietnam. Or rather, it sealed their fate, because they were doomed all along.
As much as the former Nixon assistant in the video would like you to believe otherwise, it was not the fault of the Democratic Party. Nor was it the fault of the Republican Party. There were two Democratic and two Republican presidents involved in Vietnam after the French defeat, and none of them found success there. It was a national tragedy, not a partisan one. "
This post was edited on 3/20/15 at 11:01 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News