Current Events > If America really powerful country. why it lost to Vietnam?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
masticatingman 09/04/18 8:06:36 PM #51:	Didnt lose technically, just didnt win. --- I am basically am I. Well, basically. <cite>masticatingman posted [p:908119743] in If America... [t:76965532]...</cite> <quote>Didnt lose technically, just didnt win.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 09/04/18 8:13:44 PM #52:	What a waste of time --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:908120157] in If America... [t:76965532]...</cite> <quote>What a waste of time</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darkman124 09/05/18 9:30:58 AM #53:	Hicks233 posted... Vietnam [for the US] was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. The objectives were to deny the formulation and establishment of a Communist state in the country and to maintain "interests". Not for any humanitarian reason, or ideological one, but because [according to the at the time used domino theory] if one nation falls to Communism, then another, and another will - and that mean less potential markets for the US and its interests. I perhaps should have stated 'strategic objectives' rather than just 'objectives'. The objectives you mention were indeed the political goals of the war. Why we were there was well understood, how we were going to pursue those political objectives (via acquisition of strategic objectives) was not. --- And when the hourglass has run out, eternity asks you about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not. <cite>Darkman124 posted [p:908148608] in If America... [t:76965532]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hicks233 posted...</cite> <quote>Vietnam [for the US] was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. The objectives were to deny the formulation and establishment of a Communist state in the country and to maintain "interests". Not for any humanitarian reason, or ideological one, but because [according to the at the time used domino theory] if one nation falls to Communism, then another, and another will - and that mean less potential markets for the US and its interests. </quote> I perhaps should have stated 'strategic objectives' rather than just 'objectives'. The objectives you mention were indeed the political goals of the war. Why we were there was well understood, how we were going to pursue those political objectives (via acquisition of strategic objectives) was not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hicks233 09/06/18 7:21:38 AM #54:	Darkman124 posted... Hicks233 posted... Vietnam [for the US] was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. The objectives were to deny the formulation and establishment of a Communist state in the country and to maintain "interests". Not for any humanitarian reason, or ideological one, but because [according to the at the time used domino theory] if one nation falls to Communism, then another, and another will - and that mean less potential markets for the US and its interests. I perhaps should have stated 'strategic objectives' rather than just 'objectives'. The objectives you mention were indeed the political goals of the war. Why we were there was well understood, how we were going to pursue those political objectives (via acquisition of strategic objectives) was not. The idea was to prop up a South Vietnamese government with Diem as a puppet, to train the Montagnards and other local groups in the country to handle self defence and counter insurgency and to train up the ARVN to fight on a broader front to defeat the NVA. It was intended for the Vietnamese to fight for themselves, assisted through logistics and training by the US. The other key objective was "hearts and minds". Vietnam was a proxy war yes, but for the NVA it was also an ideological one. They were seeking independence from colonial power and they were going to form their nation [for good or ill] with Communism as its foundation. The US would try and win people over with medical care for infants and the elderly, notions of individual freedom and prosperity but they fucked up by not understanding that the NVA and VC were operating on a hive mentality where sacrifice must be made for a greater good and dissent will be punished. For a Communist state to function, it needs an authoritarian, group mentality - and devotion to the same. Breaking that would be harder than the US could ever expect. Keeping Diem on a tight leash was going to be key, and keeping him in power critical. The guy was despised though due to his nepotism, corruption and Catholicism. If the US wanted to protect its "interests" it had to put boots on the ground beyond an advisor capacity as it was only a matter of time for Diem to be ousted and the sentiment towards the French to be shifted towards the US. The US could never have won in Vietnam unless they levelled the entire country. There were calls for the use of nuclear weapons, which, while it would have crippled the nation, would also likely have resulted in all out nuclear war. Now the US is remarkably dumb, but for once they looked beyond ten years into the future and realised this may not be the best idea. The diplomatic dance was handled by Kissinger in regards to China and Russia, and it remained a proxy war that needlessly fucked Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The returning veterans of the conflict weren't supported by their nation, as their nation had no reason to be invested in the conflict, it was thousands of miles away against a country that wasn't an aggressor towards them. Screeching "muh gommunism" only works for so long. Vietnam was one of, if not the biggest fuck ups in the US' history. --- http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=9458 So says Mr. Stewart. <cite>Hicks233 posted [p:908211565] in If America... [t:76965532]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darkman124 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hicks233 posted...</cite> <quote>Vietnam [for the US] was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union. The objectives were to deny the formulation and establishment of a Communist state in the country and to maintain "interests". Not for any humanitarian reason, or ideological one, but because [according to the at the time used domino theory] if one nation falls to Communism, then another, and another will - and that mean less potential markets for the US and its interests. </quote> I perhaps should have stated 'strategic objectives' rather than just 'objectives'. The objectives you mention were indeed the political goals of the war. Why we were there was well understood, how we were going to pursue those political objectives (via acquisition of strategic objectives) was not.</quote> The idea was to prop up a South Vietnamese government with Diem as a puppet, to train the Montagnards and other local groups in the country to handle self defence and counter insurgency and to train up the ARVN to fight on a broader front to defeat the NVA. It was intended for the Vietnamese to fight for themselves, assisted through logistics and training by the US. The other key objective was "hearts and minds". Vietnam was a proxy war yes, but for the NVA it was also an ideological one. They were seeking independence from colonial power and they were going to form their nation [for good or ill] with Communism as its foundation. The US would try and win people over with medical care for infants and the elderly, notions of individual freedom and prosperity but they fucked up by not understanding that the NVA and VC were operating on a hive mentality where sacrifice must be made for a greater good and dissent will be punished. For a Communist state to function, it needs an authoritarian, group mentality - and devotion to the same. Breaking that would be harder than the US could ever expect. Keeping Diem on a tight leash was going to be key, and keeping him in power critical. The guy was despised though due to his nepotism, corruption and Catholicism. If the US wanted to protect its "interests" it had to put boots on the ground beyond an advisor capacity as it was only a matter of time for Diem to be ousted and the sentiment towards the French to be shifted towards the US. The US could never have won in Vietnam unless they levelled the entire country. There were calls for the use of nuclear weapons, which, while it would have crippled the nation, would also likely have resulted in all out nuclear war. Now the US is remarkably dumb, but for once they looked beyond ten years into the future and realised this may not be the best idea. The diplomatic dance was handled by Kissinger in regards to China and Russia, and it remained a proxy war that needlessly fucked Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. The returning veterans of the conflict weren't supported by their nation, as their nation had no reason to be invested in the conflict, it was thousands of miles away against a country that wasn't an aggressor towards them. Screeching "muh gommunism" only works for so long. Vietnam was one of, if not the biggest fuck ups in the US' history.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JBaLLEN66 09/06/18 7:25:26 AM #55:	The countered Americas covential war taken with guerrila warfare which worked lol. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdR2Iktffaw The day Capitalism was humiliated :) <cite>JBaLLEN66 posted [p:908211675] in If America... [t:76965532]...</cite> <quote>The countered Americas covential war taken with guerrila warfare which worked lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NonDairyMiltank 09/06/18 7:26:02 AM #56:	wow look at all this lovely conversation a gimmick account's topic title caused nevermind that it was a laughably flawed question... --- Moo. <cite>NonDairyMiltank posted [p:908211689] in If America... [t:76965532]...</cite> <quote>wow look at all this lovely conversation a gimmick account's topic title caused nevermind that it was a laughably flawed question...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > If America really powerful country. why it lost to Vietnam? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > If America really powerful country. why it lost to Vietnam?