- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- 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: How many battles did the US lose in the Vietnam War?
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:21 pm to SheManShe
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:21 pm to SheManShe
quote:
The US got their asses kicked. Plain and simple. They were unprepared and unmotivated. Should have never been there.
See, this is what you get when you don’t value education... You get this kind of absurdity.
0
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:22 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The one on the Home Front and CBS News.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:23 pm to fitzgerald16
We lost because of LBJ.
Never forget that.
Worst President ever.
Never forget that.
Worst President ever.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:25 pm to baldona
quote:
Sure we lost 60,000 men but they lost over 1 million.
So do the math and figure how who was the better military there?
Attrition is not a good metric for a won/loss column.
I suggest to anyone in this thread they watch Vietnam by Ken Burns which can be found on Netflix. A lot of people here could learn a lot from it.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:25 pm to rintintin
quote:
I don't know, by reading the OP's posts it doesn't seem to me like he wants to admit that.
This all stems from a thread on the Poli board about who would win in a fight between the armed American people and the US gov't/military, and the OP got upset about someone using Vietnam as an example that superior fire power doesn't always mean winning the war, which is true.
I've seen the thread but only read the first two pages so I'll take your word for it. However, I do agree that Vietnam is a bad example to use in that scenario.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:27 pm to rintintin
quote:
I don't know, by reading the OP's posts it doesn't seem to me like he wants to admit that.
I never said we won the war. I’m pretty sure I made it abundantly clear that our military kicked the shite out of them while our politicians caused us to lose the war. Two things can be true at once.
This post was edited on 3/27/18 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:29 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
reading Daniel Ellsberg memoir tells a very interesting version of the US involvement there including 4 presidents across both parties.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:30 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Vietnam should be a case study for every war fought since then.
It wasn't fighting a man, it was fighting an ideology, which will never die, no matter how many men you kill.
It wasn't fighting a man, it was fighting an ideology, which will never die, no matter how many men you kill.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:34 pm to ThatMakesSense
Fascism was an ideology. Pretty sure we played an important role in killing that.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:35 pm to northshorebamaman
It may not be the best example, but it does illustrate a grossly overmatched, yet resilient and determined foe winning over a military juggernaut.
And when I say winning I mean "outlasting". They certainly didn't win in a military sense.
I'm just wondering why he's so hell-bent on how many battles were won or lost.
And when I say winning I mean "outlasting". They certainly didn't win in a military sense.
I'm just wondering why he's so hell-bent on how many battles were won or lost.
This post was edited on 3/27/18 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:36 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Them all, we never should have been there. Zero reason
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:40 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
We lost because of LBJ.
And Mcnamara,
And the Liberal Press, magazines, and Hollywood
And weak minded invertebrate American children that couldn’t keep their penises in their pants and also couldn’t muster the most infinitesimal amount of fortitude and courage to see it through to the end.
And because you don’t win wars by giving your enemy a place to hide, regroup, rearm, and plan attacks
And you don’t win wars by not bombing the crap out of their own front yard where all their weapons are in Hanoi
And you don’t win wars by sacrificing men in bloody struggles to take a territory only to refuse to occupy it and allow the enemy to take it back unopposed days after you leave it to them.
But then of course, when you fail to commit the men and materials necessary to hold territory what else can the military be expected to do?
This post was edited on 3/27/18 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:41 pm to AlonsoWDC
quote:
Why does this sound so inconceivable to you?
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:44 pm to rintintin
quote:
'm just wondering why he's so hell-bent on how many battles were won or lost.
Because I saw somebody say that on a topic on the PoliBoard, thought the OT would have a good discussion on it. So far, it has been.
quote:
And when I say winning I mean "outlasting". They certainly didn't win in a military sense.
Well the topic is on the military side of things. I don’t want to get into the political side of that conflict because it makes me sick to my stomach that we told the south that they were on their own after we agreed to aid them should the north ever attack. That was the point where our government lost its integrity in my mind.
I just find it extremely unfair to our men who died over there and our men who came back but their mind stayed over there to say that our military lost that war when all things that say who wins a war weighs heavily in the US military’s favor. Should we have never gone over there? That’s a completely different topic and one that is abundantly more complex in my mind than the topic at hand.
This post was edited on 3/27/18 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:52 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Battles W/L were an irrelevant stat in that war.
We counted wins in body counts, which we overwhelmingly won. And that was proven to be woefully stupid.
Viet Cong played the long game and gave no shits.
We counted wins in body counts, which we overwhelmingly won. And that was proven to be woefully stupid.
Viet Cong played the long game and gave no shits.
This post was edited on 3/27/18 at 8:56 pm
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:55 pm to Backinthe615
quote:
Viet Kong played the long game and gave no shits.
Well, they were experts in gorilla warfare.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:56 pm to northshorebamaman
Damn you
eta: Worst part is I looked it up and went with the potato spelling.
eta: Worst part is I looked it up and went with the potato spelling.
This post was edited on 3/27/18 at 9:00 pm
Posted on 3/27/18 at 8:58 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
read on this site that the US lost over 100 battles in the war. Yes, 100 battles.
Whoever said that is as full of shite as a Christmas turkey.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 9:01 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
We lost because we cared enough about South Vietnam to fight for them, but not enough to risk a general war with China and possibly the USSR to do what would have been necessary to win - i.e., invade the North. The NVA could have done nothing to stop us, but we were afraid of kicking off WWIII if we did it. Our war aim, which should have been to render the North incapable of further attacks against the South, instead was reduced to defending the South against communist aggression - and, given the geopolitical situation in that part of the world, it was clear that to achieve that aim, US forces would have to be present in the South indefinitely. That was ultimately unpalatable to the American people.
Posted on 3/27/18 at 9:02 pm to Backinthe615
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News