Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree200Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 19th, 2016, 07:45 AM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Florida
Posts: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Here's why the U.S. lost:

The Vietnamese were willing to fight for 100 years or more and lose an entire generation or men, or more.
And we were NOT.
End of story.
U.S.M.C. 1968-1974.
Actually America lost because the left wing Democrat House pulled the funding. That's called TREASON.

Nixon was bombing the hell out of Cambodia, where a lot of the VCs were running away. In two more years, we could have had that country back in the hands of someone other than Communists.
reason10 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 07:50 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by reason10 View Post
Actually America lost because the left wing Democrat House pulled the funding. That's called TREASON.

Nixon was bombing the hell out of Cambodia, where a lot of the VCs were running away. In two more years, we could have had that country back in the hands of someone other than Communists.
Nixon broke diplomatic policy by moving troops and airstrikes into Cambodia. That's called breaking international law.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 08:25 AM   #33
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
They tolerated it in the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2.

Held on? Well that's obvious: establish permanent bases with set amount of troops to be left there (just like in other NATO allies during the Cold War, because of course eventually South Vietnam would have to join NATO) and then something similar to Vietnamization would go down. Then they're be a steady withdrawal of US troops from the area and the US would take North Vietnam to the negotiating table now that they had the diplomatic upper hand.
Just like it worked in Korea?
RNG is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 08:31 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Just like it worked in Korea?
Yeah. South Korea sucked, and then over time became awesome.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 08:33 AM   #35
Putin approves
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 18,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
Nixon broke diplomatic policy by moving troops and airstrikes into Cambodia. That's called breaking international law.
...and jumping from country to country to hunt supposed "terrorists" is different, how?
Thanks from Pilgrim
Sabcat is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 08:36 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
locke23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
...and jumping from country to country to hunt supposed "terrorists" is different, how?
Targeted killings and cooperative counter terrorism between countries is perfectly legal both internationally and in most countries' federal law.
locke23 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 08:47 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 20,802
wouldn't the first thing to be done have been to actually declare war so we could fight a WAR instead of a "situation?"
Thanks from Sabcat
tristanrobin is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 09:07 AM   #38
Banned
 
Toto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
We are not at war with Iran nor are they our enemy.

Also, Obama is seeking friendship with them. Isn't that a good thing, especially since they're the new major power in the Middle East?
You can't make friends with a snake. Snakes bite, it's what they do. Iran never even signed the deal ole Obama is touting as a "success".
Toto2 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 09:10 AM   #39
Banned
 
Toto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by locke23 View Post
When did I say anything implying I'm intellectually superior? I'm saying I hate how everyone ignored the requests I made in my post at the start of the thread and this has become another silly playground rabble instead of an actual discussion.

Out of all the evidence and arguments I made in the essay above, about 10% came from stuff I learned in school. The rest is from stuff I learned from my own personal studying, a lot of which comes from primary documents or even better, straight out of the mouths of historians, officers and enlisted men with far more experience and knowledge than me that I've met.
We lost the Vietnam for many reasons. Not the least of which was no national or political will to actually fight it. The Theory of limited war is bullshit. Rules of Engagement are bullshit.
Toto2 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2016, 09:20 AM   #40
Banned
 
Toto2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,149
I would also add that "Proportional Force" is a bullshit theory too.
Toto2 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
vietnam, war, won



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Look Back at the Vietnam War kcvet World History 15 September 17th, 2013 07:59 AM
Lesson of Vietnam webguy4 Opinion Polls 40 August 20th, 2013 02:58 PM
What was Vietnam?? prescott911 Opinion Polls 106 March 24th, 2013 01:29 AM
Worse Than Vietnam? intangible child Warfare 6 June 30th, 2010 12:41 PM
Will Obama's war become his Vietnam? CNN Current Events 2 December 1st, 2009 10:29 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.