Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 18:23
    To avoid derailing the other thread.
  2. 01 Aug '11 18:29
    Sure, by killing everyone.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Aug '11 18:35
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    To avoid derailing the other thread.
    Unfortunately, I already derailed the other thread by posting this:

    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I've listened to and studied the opinions of both American military and Vietnamese military and civilians and they both seem to agree - they didn't understand how the Commies won, or why the US left when they did.


    Because the people in the US who make the decisions realized that the cost of continuing a war that could not be won even if it couldn't be militarily lost just wasn't worth it.

    The people in Vietnam who made the decisions were willing to pay virtually any price to show the people who made the decisions in the US that the latter could never win.

    I've read many US military people claiming that the TET offensive was a huge victory for the US, but they just don't understand that its purpose was not to drive the US forces into the sea but to show US political leaders that the Vietnamese were quite capable of striking anywhere at virtually any time. This was a disastrous repudiation of the Kissinger type ideas regarding "securing" the population (though Kissinger was not in government yet he had written a famous academic article proposing said policy). The only other strategy the military ever came up with was attrition which was obviously doomed.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Aug '11 18:52
    ATY, if you want to read a great book on 20th Century US Grand Strategy I hardily endorse this one written in 1973: http://books.google.com/books/about/War_and_politics.html?id=Q76OAAAAMAAJ

    The author is a discipline of Clausewitz and uses his philosophy to examine the decisions of major players in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The chapters on Vietnam are absolutely brilliant. I don't agree with everything he argues (he's strongly supportive of Truman's decision to drop the Bomb for example), but he makes strong arguments backed by cogent analysis throughout.
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 18:55
    Thanks, I'll try to get a copy
  6. 01 Aug '11 19:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Unfortunately, I already derailed the other thread by posting this:

    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I've listened to and studied the opinions of both American military and Vietnamese military and civilians and they both seem to agree - they didn't understand how the Commies won, or why the US left when they did.


    Because the peo ...[text shortened]... other strategy the military ever came up with was attrition which was obviously doomed.
    The TET offensive hurt the US effort because the government had been saying that the war was essentially won. Although it was a military defeat, it made clear that the war was nowhere close to winding down. Faith in the government tanked.
  7. 01 Aug '11 19:09
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    To avoid derailing the other thread.
    It depends on what you mean by "win." We had the power to level the place into one big KMART parking lot, but Kennen wrote in his memoirs that Nixon was afraid to use nuclear weapons because it might actually start revolution at home - basically official confirmation of the effectiveness of the demonstrations.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 19:12
    What I mean by this thread is - if the US population had been behind the war in Vietnam as they had been behind WWII, the US could have prevented Communist forces from officially taking control of the country without nuclear weapons.

    That's the topic of debate.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Aug '11 19:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What I mean by this thread is - if the US population had been behind the war in Vietnam as they had been behind WWII, the US could have prevented Communist forces from officially taking control of the country without nuclear weapons.

    That's the topic of debate.
    I think the US population would have tired of WWII IF it had continued for more than a decade with no prospect of victory in sight.
  10. 01 Aug '11 19:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I think the US population would have tired of WWII IF it had continued for more than a decade with no prospect of victory in sight.
    But even then, it would have been different. If the war had lasted that long, there would have been strikes against the continental US as we were up against powers with that capability. Vietnam had no such capability.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 19:25
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    But even then, it would have been different. If the war had lasted that long, there would have been strikes against the continental US as we were up against powers with that capability. Vietnam had no such capability.
    Japan even shelled California once!
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Aug '11 22:20
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Japan even shelled California once!
    I believe it was Oregon.
  13. 01 Aug '11 22:38
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What I mean by this thread is - if the US population had been behind the war in Vietnam as they had been behind WWII, the US could have prevented Communist forces from officially taking control of the country without nuclear weapons.

    That's the topic of debate.
    you really can't compare peoples perceptions of the two wars, they started for two completely different reasons.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 22:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by trev33
    you really can't compare peoples perceptions of the two wars, they started for two completely different reasons.
    Eurasian fascist hordes are all the same.

  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    01 Aug '11 22:51 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    I believe it was Oregon.
    Oregon was where the fire balloon landed I believe. No, we actually had a sub surface and fire it's cannon at Santa Barbara.

    http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/05/0505japanese-balloon-kills-oregon/
    http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/santab.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

    Of course, we did more damage to ourselves that war than Japan did ("Battle of Los Angeles" )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles