He Was 19 (Vietnam War Discussion Thread)

[Outer Sparta]

Those youngsters died for nothing. Vietnam was for nothing. Thousands of lives lost, 140 billions of dollars wasted (amounting to 950 today, not including veteran benefits), sixteen years down the drain - for nothing. 140 billion dollars?!?!?! Those billions of dollars could've been used on education, healthcare, welfare, and improving ourselves within, not buying another nuclear warhead like some sort of anti-commie president tells us. Our debt would've been a lot less if it weren't for Vietnam and our arms race with the USSR. Vietnam was a COMPLETEwaste of our time, people, and to our economy.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Those youngsters died for nothing. Vietnam was for nothing. Thousands of lives lost, 140 billions of dollars wasted (amounting to 950 today, not including veteran benefits), sixteen years down the drain - for nothing. 140 billion dollars?!?!?! Those billions of dollars could've been used on education, healthcare, welfare, and improving ourselves within, not buying another nuclear warhead like some sort of anti-commie president tells us. Our debt would've been a lot less if it weren't for Vietnam and our arms race with the USSR. Vietnam was a COMPLETE]waste of our time, people, and to our economy.

Try millions. South and North Vietnam are thought to have over a million dead each.

[Anshaskia]

Those youngsters died for nothing. Vietnam was for nothing. Thousands of lives lost, 140 billions of dollars wasted (amounting to 950 today), sixteen years down the drain - for nothing. 140 billion dollars?!?!?! Those billions of dollars could've been used on education, healthcare, welfare, and improving ourselves within, not buying another nuclear warhead like some sort of anti-commie president tells us. Our debt would've been a lot less if it weren't for Vietnam and our arms race with the USSR. Vietnam was a COMPLETE]waste of our time, people, and to our economy.

Let's not forget all the civilians who died and non-American military losses as well. Out of all the countries who were hit during the war, it was Vietnam who was hit the hardest. Almost 60,000 Americans died and it is a tragedy, yes, but as high as almost two-million Vietnamese were killed. Two-million. Plus the Chinese lost a thousand or so and thousands of soldiers fighting on the side of South Vietnam who weren't Americans died as well (mostly South Koreans, but there were others). Then there was the Cambodian and Laotian Civil War, which experienced as high as 300,000 and 70,000 deaths, respectively (according to Wikipedia). There were also some Soviet deaths, but very few. Nonetheless, those few men shouldn't be forgotten.

Edit: Non-American, pro-South Vietnam countries whose soldiers died during the war included Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines, and the aforementioned South Korea.

[-The West Coast-]

The Americans could have won.

But they were defeated by protestors (their own). Thank goodness they weren't around in World War II.

There is no way America could have won...

The United States WAS winning the Vietnam War militarily. After crushing the Tet Offensive and pushing the VC back, the US military and its allies had every chance to continue forward and slowly and utterly annihilate the dirty Communists that infected North Vietnam.

The only reason the United States made peace (we never lost) with the dirty Commies in Hanoi was because of equally dirty and useless hippies and free love drug addicts were protesting the war and couldn't handle modern warfare's real human cost when they saw it on the television each night.

Public opinion of the presidency and the war were worse than Hitler so LBJ pussied out (for the millionth time in his life) and we made peace with our mortal enemy so that some dopers in Woodstock could feel better about themselves.

[Anshaskia]

There is no way America could have won...

The United States WAS winning the Vietnam War militarily. After crushing the Tet Offensive and pushing the VC back, the US military and its allies had every chance to continue forward and slowly and utterly annihilate the dirty Communists that infected North Vietnam.

The only reason the United States made peace (we never lost) with the dirty Commies in Hanoi was because of equally dirty and useless hippies and free love drug addicts were protesting the war and couldn't handle modern warfare's real human cost when they saw it on the television each night.

Public opinion of the presidency and the war were worse than Hitler so LBJ pussied out (for the millionth time in his life) and we made peace with our mortal enemy so that some dopers in Woodstock could feel better about themselves.

Wow, wow, wow. Hold your horses there, my friend. Although the Tet Offensive was a tactical victory for South Vietnam, America, and their allies, it only really hit the Viet Cong. The NVA experienced very few losses during the offensive and communist forces just ended up relying more on the North Vietnamese Army as a result of the Viet Cong's failed operation.

You're right that public opinion of the war had a huge affect on moral both domestically and on the front, but it was hardly a deciding factor of the war. There was too much going wrong and the North was a well-equipped, battle-hardened fighting force dogmatic in their goals to reunify Vietnam under their leadership.

I hate to break it to you, but we lost the war. The South did not stand and both Vietnams were reunified under a socialist government. Sure, the whole domino theory didn't happen, but that was just silliness and its failure to take place would hardly count as an American victory.

The US didn't win. There was no tie. We lost. Period.

[Yuketobaniac]

when did they say they didn't lose

When you ask someone in the U.S. who won the war, they try to change the subject.

because most in cali don't care about who won and only care about themselves

[Prussia-Steinbach]

We lost the War of 1812?

Some people would argue yes.

I am under the impression that it was a draw.

We went to war to get Britain to stop impressing our sailors. Our capital city got burned down and nothing changed.

That's a loss.

[The New Sea Territory]

The United States WAS winning the Vietnam War militarily. After crushing the Tet Offensive and pushing the VC back, the US military and its allies had every chance to continue forward and slowly and utterly annihilate the dirty Communists that infected North Vietnam.

First, using "dirty Communists" shows your lack of objectivity on the topic, but moving on...

No, the US military (and "allies", which were minimal...this was America's war, not the Vietnamese's war) would not have been successful at all in invading the North. At best, we could have had a Korea-like stalemate, where the North would remain militarized and would continue supporting guerrilla groups like the Viet Cong, and the South would remain a corrupt, military dictatorship.

The only reason the United States made peace (we never lost) with the dirty Commies in Hanoi was because of equally dirty and useless hippies and free love drug addicts were protesting the war and couldn't handle modern warfare's real human cost when they saw it on the television each night.

We lost. Accept it, reactionary. Your magical, honorable homeland lost a war.

While this is true, to an extent, we could not have actually won the war. We would not have been able to maintain the status quo for a very long time, because, truth be told, more of the Vietnamese people liked the North than the South. The North was authoritarian and corrupt, but they at least had the courtesy to pretend to be free and democratic, unlike the "Republic" of Vietnam. If we had stayed there longer, the Vietnamese in the South would have become more and more sympathetic to the Viet Cong. In the eyes of the average Vietnamese civilian, the military government of the South was just an American front.

Also, "useless hippies and free love drug addicts"...I guess that's me. I believe in peace, free love and drug legalization. Freedom, man.

Public opinion of the presidency and the war were worse than Hitler so LBJ pussied out (for the millionth time in his life) and we made peace with our mortal enemy so that some dopers in Woodstock could feel better about themselves.

Contrary to popular belief, Vietnam was opposed by more people than just hippies. Though, if you buy into conservative historians' nonsense, you would be lead to believe that one could only oppose war if they had smoked weed.

LBJ didn't "pussy out". He accepted reality. While, you, on the other hand, live a in a fairy world were millions can die for "freedom" against our "mortal enemy" in an unwinnable war.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Some people would argue yes.

I am under the impression that it was a draw.

We went to war to get Britain to stop impressing our sailors. Our capital city got burned down and nothing changed.

That's a loss.

We went to war to stop Britain messing with our sailors and trade. They stopped messing with our sailors and trade. They also succeeded in keeping their lands. That's a draw.

[Imperial City-States]

Many people who're against the Vietnam war refuse to look at the conflict from a Military standpoint rather than simply a political one. As a couple of people have mentioned already. The NVA were utterly destroyed as an organized fighting entity. They made the mistake of fighting a conventional war against the United States and got the shit kicked out of them. What prevented the Military from having a 'clear' objective was the United States government. One of the key examples i can remember is when the U.S Army wanted too (and actually did) cross into Cambodia in order to attack that Ho Chi Minh trail that was providing both the Viet Cong and the NVA. The Politicians said 'no' and so the Army had to stop what they were doing (they were ten miles away from a major NVA command center) and fall back. The U.S Military could've rather easily rolled across the border into North Vietnam and crushed their 'conventional' forces. Reason we didn't, is we were worried about Chinese intervention (like what happened in Korea) and possible provocation of the Soviet Union. (Height of the Cold War remember.)


The U.S Military did not lose the war from a combative standpoint. The U.S Government lost the Vietnam war.

[Outer Sparta]

I was under the impression that it was known the US lost. But some people can get offended at the idea that they lost a war. Just look at debates about the War of 1812.

We lost the War of 1812?

We did. Canada won that war. We actually tried to invade them. We didn't succeed, and it was a humiliating loss. 1812 will just be forgotten here.

[Glorious KASSRD]

We lost the War of 1812?

We did. Canada won that war. We actually tried to invade them. We didn't succeed, and it was a humiliating loss. 1812 will just be forgotten here.

Canada was only a side goal, ending British harassment of our sailors was the main goal. After Napoleon neither side Had a purpose in fighting, so we just kind of stopped.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

We went to war to get Britain to stop impressing our sailors. Our capital city got burned down and nothing changed.

That's a loss.

We went to war to stop Britain messing with our sailors and trade. They stopped messing with our sailors and trade. They also succeeded in keeping their lands. That's a draw.

Except you're wrong! When you go to war to change something, and the final treaty that ends said war puts things back to status quo antebellum, plus your capital got burned down and you lost a shitload of slaves/property, you lost.

[Imperial City-States]

We went to war to stop Britain messing with our sailors and trade. They stopped messing with our sailors and trade. They also succeeded in keeping their lands. That's a draw.

Except you're wrong! When you go to war to change something, and the final treaty that ends said war puts things back to status quo antebellum, plus your capital got burned down and you lost a shitload of slaves/property, you lost.

It's not surprising nor that shameful. Yeah we lost. Against arguably the Best Army in the world with nothing more than levies.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Except you're wrong! When you go to war to change something, and the final treaty that ends said war puts things back to status quo antebellum, plus your capital got burned down and you lost a shitload of slaves/property, you lost.

It's not surprising nor that shameful. Yeah we lost. Against arguably the Best Army in the world with nothing more than levies.

I wasn't shaming anyone. We just lost. I was debating against someone who thought otherwise.

[Imperial City-States]

It's not surprising nor that shameful. Yeah we lost. Against arguably the Best Army in the world with nothing more than levies.

I wasn't shaming anyone. We just lost. I was debating against someone who thought otherwise.

Well was more directed at people who think that somehow admitting a 'lose' is a bad thing.

[Anshaskia]

I wasn't shaming anyone. We just lost. I was debating against someone who thought otherwise.

Well was more directed at people who think that somehow admitting a 'lose' is a bad thing.

Loosing generally isn't a good thing for the people who lost.

[Aalmark]

Bloody failure of a war. Normally, I like to add substance to my posts, explain myself, etc. But, there is so little that needs to be said here. It seems like an oversimplification when people say "we intervened because we were reckless and didn't want communism", but it's not an oversimplification. Just goes to show that LBJ was a bastard.

[Imperial City-States]

Bloody failure of a war. Normally, I like to add substance to my posts, explain myself, etc. But, there is so little that needs to be said here. It seems like an oversimplification when people say "we intervened because we were reckless and didn't want communism", but it's not an oversimplification. Just goes to show that LBJ was a bastard.

IIRC Kennedy was the first one to have intervention.

[Aalmark]

Bloody failure of a war. Normally, I like to add substance to my posts, explain myself, etc. But, there is so little that needs to be said here. It seems like an oversimplification when people say "we intervened because we were reckless and didn't want communism", but it's not an oversimplification. Just goes to show that LBJ was a bastard.

IIRC Kennedy was the first one to have intervention.

Correct. Johnson, however, was the real genius who decided to escalate conflict by a ten fold.

[The United Federation of Terrans]

IIRC Kennedy was the first one to have intervention.

Correct. Johnson, however, was the real genius who decided to escalate conflict by a ten fold.

He escalated the war, but not in the sense that would end it. He increased the troop count, frequency of operations and military budget; but he didn't expand it in a way to defeat North Vietnam. Thus he just increased the casualty count in the end.

[Anshaskia]

Also, Robert McNamara was a total fucker and Lyndon B. Johnson might of been slightly less of a fucker.

Just sayin'.

[Outer Sparta]

How many civilian deaths were attributed to Agent Orange, America's chemical weapon?

[Imperial City-States]

How many civilian deaths were attributed to Agent Orange, America's chemical weapon?

You do realize that the weapons intent was not as a Chemical Weapons, it's a Defoliant.

[Eastern Equestria]

Also, Robert McNamara was a total fucker and Lyndon B. Johnson might of been slightly less of a fucker.

Just sayin'.

At least McNamara later regretted and apologized for how fucked Vietnam was. You'll likely never get that out of the neo-cons responsible for Iraq/Afganistan.