If Iraq wins...

kid kool

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
The whole point is that we didn't lose the Vietnam War in Vietnam, we lost it in New York and Washington. The loss of the Vietnam war was not a result of the North Vietnamese fighting force. Even with all the ridiculous restrictions the politicians placed on our military we still won all the battles and managed to preserve South Vietnam's independence. There were three major factors which ultimately led to defeat in Vietnam.

1. "Vietnamization" had a very serious flaw. This was the plan that as South Vietnam's army grew stronger, the U.S. would slowly reduce the number of troops. This turned out to be quite effective early on. Even after the U.S. military had left, the South was still able to crush the north on its own (while receiving U.S. military aid.)The problem with the implementation of this strategy was that the South Vietnamese army was equipped like a regular U.S. division. Their economy simply could not support maintaining this kind of a force once the U.S. congress decided to withhold military aid. The forces should have been equipped in a way that was more practical for them to be able to maintain on their own.

2. The case-church amendment has to have been one of the most treacherous pieces of legislation the congress has ever passed. After we had gone through all those years of fighting and had managed to preserve Sotuh Vietnam's independence, congress
took away our ability to enforce the Paris Peace Accords. It was always understood that any violations by the North vietnamese would be enforced with American air power. Then congress legislated that power away and it basically was like sending a telegram to the North Vietnamese saying we weren't going to enforce our part of the agreement. So then the North was free to invade. Congress then blocked all aid to the South

3. The watergate scandal that forced Richard Nixon out of the White House swept democrats into the congress, and changed the whole political atmosphere. The bumbling Gerald Ford simply did not have the foreign policy expertise that Nixon had, and Ford also had no clout or mandate to do anything really. He did try for emergency aid for Thieu, but he did not have the skills Nixon possessed to convince what had become a far more liberal congress.
 

Headshot

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Location
Detroit, USA
Originally posted by kid kool
The whole point is that we didn't lose the Vietnam War in Vietnam, we lost it in New York and Washington. The loss of the Vietnam war was not a result of the North Vietnamese fighting force. Even with all the ridiculous restrictions the politicians placed on our military we still won all the battles and managed to preserve South Vietnam's independence. There were three major factors which ultimately led to defeat in Vietnam.

1. "Vietnamization" had a very serious flaw. This was the plan that as South Vietnam's army grew stronger, the U.S. would slowly reduce the number of troops. This turned out to be quite effective early on. Even after the U.S. military had left, the South was still able to crush the north on its own (while receiving U.S. military aid.)The problem with the implementation of this strategy was that the South Vietnamese army was equipped like a regular U.S. division. Their economy simply could not support maintaining this kind of a force once the U.S. congress decided to withhold military aid. The forces should have been equipped in a way that was more practical for them to be able to maintain on their own.

2. The case-church amendment has to have been one of the most treacherous pieces of legislation the congress has ever passed. After we had gone through all those years of fighting and had managed to preserve Sotuh Vietnam's independence, congress
took away our ability to enforce the Paris Peace Accords. It was always understood that any violations by the North vietnamese would be enforced with American air power. Then congress legislated that power away and it basically was like sending a telegram to the North Vietnamese saying we weren't going to enforce our part of the agreement. So then the North was free to invade. Congress then blocked all aid to the South

3. The watergate scandal that forced Richard Nixon out of the White House swept democrats into the congress, and changed the whole political atmosphere. The bumbling Gerald Ford simply did not have the foreign policy expertise that Nixon had, and Ford also had no clout or mandate to do anything really. He did try for emergency aid for Thieu, but he did not have the skills Nixon possessed to convince what had become a far more liberal congress.
hmmm soo.... veryyy.... temmmpptttinngggg
but realistically we can blame the war on one(or six) bullet(s) that killed JFK who had the EO ready to remove the stars and stripes from SEA
 

kid kool

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Headshot


hmmm soo.... veryyy.... temmmpptttinngggg
but realistically we can blame the war on one(or six) bullet(s) that killed JFK who had the EO ready to remove the stars and stripes from SEA

Well with that statement you're missing the point. You're trying to lay blame as to what caused are very involvement in Vietnam whereas i was addressing the reasons for our defeat. They're two separate issues.

Also it was Kennedy who opened the whole thing wide open with his orders to dispose of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, America's shameful betrayal and summary execution of an ally.
 

Daw

Recruit
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
What I find ironic is the same people who insist the US didn't lose Vietnam, just "withdrew", are normally the exact same people who go on about how the US "kicked English Butt" in the war of independence. The fact is it is impossible to win a guerrilla war when you lack the backing of the local population. The British learnt this in 1783.... I still doubt whether the US has learnt it yet.

On a similar note, it is also ironic how the same people who get highly aggressive at any thought of UN presence in the US are the same ones who expect countries like Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc to welcome the presence of US personnel and get surprised when some members of those countries take great exception.
 
Last edited:

John Paul

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
287
Reaction score
1
Location
Pittsburgh PA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Daw
What I find ironic is the same people who insist the US didn't lose Vietnam, just "withdrew", are normally the exact same people who go on about how the US "kicked English Butt" in the war of independence. The fact is it is impossible to win a guerrilla war when you lack the backing of the local population. The British learnt this in 1783
The British did not want for backing among the populace during the Revolution.The best way i have heard it put was one-third of the colonials were for independence,one-third were against,and the other third were fence sitters.
 

Marko

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Location
United Kingdom
Country
ll
This thread is now totally off topic, the colonists were punished for their treason - they inherited the USA. :p
 

LaPalice

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
393
Reaction score
0
Location
France
Country
llFrance
Originally posted by Marko
This thread is now totally off topic, the colonists were punished for their treason - they inherited the USA. :p
Punished ? On the contrary ! God was a sweet guy with them : He created The huge Atlantic to separate America from Great Britain. We, the French, have only the Channel (and I don’t speak about the Rhine and the Germans…). ;)

La Palice.
 
Top