- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:28 am to bobBoxer
I would not say they lost. But they definitely did not accomplish their mission, or at least the stated admission
Posted on 11/10/25 at 9:33 am to bobBoxer
On the field, no. US did not lose one single face to face engagement versus the NVA.
But that was only part of their strategy. We were subject to the thousands af little cuts strategy. Then we faced the political fight and we did not win that .
But that was only part of their strategy. We were subject to the thousands af little cuts strategy. Then we faced the political fight and we did not win that .
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:16 pm to bobBoxer
Has any nation ever won a shooting war against an idea?
I am going to get lambasted for this but its a given that communism is going to fail due to its inadequacy in addressing human nature. Eventually it will fail. Given that this is as certain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west why do market economies spend so much money and effort stopping the spread of communism? The US in particular is not overly interested in Human Rights abroad...we are in bed with Saudi Arabia and it would be hard to find a worse human rights situation on the planet. Could it be that capitalism will indeed struggle to compete with a taxing power? It is hard to imagine even in the greatest market economy ever known for a group of investors to build a simple road without the collective weight of government involved to some degree. It certainly hasn't happened much in the United States. I am not questioning the fact that ALL controlled economies eventually die of their own weight...I am simply asking why, given that this is as sure as tax and death, why not simply allow them to do so in their own time. Historically they are not nearly as prone to building empires as market economies are so that's not the answer...they also have never gone in the controlled market economy business without free markets doing all manner of ill shite to hasten their demise...one has to ask why, if they are doomed to fail eventually and are far less prone to empirical designs, historically, than market economies why all the bother?
I am going to get lambasted for this but its a given that communism is going to fail due to its inadequacy in addressing human nature. Eventually it will fail. Given that this is as certain as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west why do market economies spend so much money and effort stopping the spread of communism? The US in particular is not overly interested in Human Rights abroad...we are in bed with Saudi Arabia and it would be hard to find a worse human rights situation on the planet. Could it be that capitalism will indeed struggle to compete with a taxing power? It is hard to imagine even in the greatest market economy ever known for a group of investors to build a simple road without the collective weight of government involved to some degree. It certainly hasn't happened much in the United States. I am not questioning the fact that ALL controlled economies eventually die of their own weight...I am simply asking why, given that this is as sure as tax and death, why not simply allow them to do so in their own time. Historically they are not nearly as prone to building empires as market economies are so that's not the answer...they also have never gone in the controlled market economy business without free markets doing all manner of ill shite to hasten their demise...one has to ask why, if they are doomed to fail eventually and are far less prone to empirical designs, historically, than market economies why all the bother?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:11 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Did the US achieve the objective of preventing the communist from taking over?
Apparently not in NYC.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:31 pm to bobBoxer
Objectively yes; militarily no.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:33 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
Has any nation ever won a shooting war against an idea?
Nazism was an idea just like communism is an idea.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 6:39 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Ho Chi Minh is a son of a bitch.
Got the blue balls, clap, and the seven year itch.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 6:53 pm to Missouri Waltz
quote:
Got the blue balls, clap, and the seven year itch.
I always thought he said crabs, is it clap?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 7:20 pm to bobBoxer
We did not lose the war militarily. Every major US engagement with the North ended in a US victory, we lost politically. The Viet Cong was a spent military force after TET but so was the American public in terms of their political support for the war
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:28 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Nazism was an idea just like communism is an idea.
Had it not been for invading neighbors and Japan bombing Pearl Harbor there is a pretty good chance the US never gets involved in what turned into WW2
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:38 am to bobBoxer
The USA lost the propaganda war in Vietnam. Militarily, we could have wiped Vietnam off the map had the war been fought with the intention to actually win. But when you have bureaucrats making miltary decisions and the enemy is committed to fighting until there are no warriors left to pick up a weapon, you get what we got.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:42 am to Missouri Waltz
quote:
Ho Chi Minh is a son of a bitch.
fun fact trivia, Ho Chi Minh used to be a pastry chef at the Parker House in Boston, same hotel that JFK proposed to Jackie, at least that's what he and the Parker House claim, there's even a plaque in the hotel saying as much
Posted on 11/11/25 at 9:53 am to bobBoxer
We could have won but lost the will to continue. It's considered a loss because the people we were fighting took control.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 10:01 am to bobBoxer
Did we really win the ETO during WW2?
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:04 am to bobBoxer
quote:
Did the us really lose the war in Vietnam?
Yes, because this traitorous pig was allowed back into the US and still lives here under the protection of the military she betrayed. frick Hanoi Jane.

Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:05 am to samson73103
But when you have bureaucrats making miltary decisions and the enemy is committed to fighting until there are no warriors left to pick up a weapon, you get what we got.
---Plus there were global concerns. For example, we did not want to risk China's army flooding into Vietnam like they did in Korea, so we had a limited war effort. And Berlin---the USSR had all of East Germany and half of Berlin & could have started WW3 in Europe if the US did something like obliterate North Vietnam.
---Plus there were global concerns. For example, we did not want to risk China's army flooding into Vietnam like they did in Korea, so we had a limited war effort. And Berlin---the USSR had all of East Germany and half of Berlin & could have started WW3 in Europe if the US did something like obliterate North Vietnam.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:41 am to OWLFAN86
quote:Some were, yes. But to make a blanket statement that the American public was horrible to the vets is absurd. The vast majority of America was supportive of the vets.
The American public was horrible to the veterans
Just because the media incited the public with propaganda to distract it from the Deep State profiteering of the war didn't make it true.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 11:44 am to TX Tiger
quote:
The vast majority of America was supportive of the vets
this
Posted on 11/11/25 at 1:27 pm to OWLFAN86
Saw it with my own 5 years old eyes when a wounded uncle came back from a Mekong delta mine.
Being heckled in airport
Being heckled in airport
Back to top


1








