Originally posted by zeeblebotI misread his post. I apologize. I thought he meant the backbone of the US vs the backbone of the US military.
whose backbone is he talking about when he says "When they're busy with their blitzkriegs (shock and awe... but Goering would have been proud), the US army is all full of pride, wit and courage.
But as soon as a conflict becomes entrenched, the backbone snaps and the troops just wanna get home for Thanksgiving"?
1 edit
Originally posted by smw6869I guess I was mistaken. I should have written
Then we should not have signed the South East Asia Treaty which said we would do exactly that. We have similar treaties with other nations. I'm with you.Tell them all to pound sand.
The US is not responsible for the national security of some nation at war on the other side of the planet, unless of course we've taken on that responsibility by signing a treaty with a particular country.
We have signed treaties of mutual defense with several southeast asian countries, but Vietnam was not one of them, and the proposal that SEATO get involved in the Vietnam conflict was repeatedly shot down by the signitories.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI stand corrected, but some members of SEATO did join together and agree to help South Vietnam.
I guess I was mistaken. I should have written
The US is not responsible for the national security of some nation at war on the other side of the planet, unless of course we've taken on that responsibility by signing a treaty with a particular country.
We have signed treaties of mutual defense with several southeast asian countries, but V ...[text shortened]... al that SEATO get involved in the Vietnam conflict was repeatedly shot down by the signitories.
2 edits
Originally posted by smw6869god, it was all designed to counter the cold-war expansion of communism.
I stand corrected, but some members of SEATO did join together and agree to help South Vietnam.
Who would have won the war had the american public not chickened out when they saw body bags on TV is irrelevant.
It's just another example of "fighting them over there instead of in our country". This mentality is happening again today in Iraq.
The US is fighting the expansion of Islam instead of communism this time. The US government is smarter this time and uses jingoistic lines like "support our troops" to maintain support for the war by distracting its citizenry from the real issues.
Originally posted by uzlessI agree.
god, it was all designed to counter the cold-war expansion of communism.
Who would have won the war had the american public not chickened out when they saw body bags on TV is irrelevant.
It's just another example of "fighting them over there instead of in our country". This mentality is happening again today in Iraq.
The US is fighting the expan ...[text shortened]... troops" to maintain support for the war by distracting its citizenry from the real issues.
Originally posted by slimjimYes, it was the traitorous media. They told the American people we were losing, when actually we were on the verge of Total Victory.
That's right. You also forgot to mention that bitch Jane Fonda.
The Media always wants to lose wars. They've also sworn oaths to destroy the Great Satan America.
There was so much Good going on in Vietnam, just like all the Good going on in Iraq- but do you ever hear about any of that?? No no no. The media makes sure that you never hear all the Good News.
So there's either two options here- Replace the media with war propoganda, or fortify American stomachs for long bloody wars.
Since the 1st initiative is already underway, I propose we move on the 2nd solution.
Everyone who feels this line of thinking is reasonable: remove your stomach with a sterile kitchen knife and spray it with a water sealant, replace, sew up, and join the Army.
Originally posted by MacSwainCould not have been said any better.
Original question of this thread:
DID THE MEDIA LOSE VIETNAM?
The answer is no. The media was allied with North Vietnam, therefore, they won.
You may want to watch the video: "Televisions Vietnam: The Impact Of Media"
Prod. by Accuracy in Media. 1275 K street, N.W., Suite 1150. Wash, D.C. 20005. 202-371-6710
Or maybe they're on the internet.
Originally posted by Darth SpongeGood point, Darth, South Viet Nam in 1968 was a very unsafe place to be no matter where you went, Saigon included. Three years later, in 1971, we had the entire country secured and you could go almost anywhere with no problem, right up to the DMZ.
Yes, it was the traitorous media. They told the American people we were losing, when actually we were on the verge of Total Victory.
The Media always wants to lose wars. They've also sworn oaths to destroy the Great Satan America.
There was so much Good going on in Vietnam, just like all the Good going on in Iraq- but do you ever hear about any ...[text shortened]... a sterile kitchen knife and spray it with a water sealant, replace, sew up, and join the Army.
Or at least that was my experience.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThat's right. After we went into Cambodia in May 1970 and cleaned out the NVA that was there for the last 10 years destroying their caches of weapons it got pretty quiet. Hell I found enough weapons to equip all of SE Asia, not to mention all of the rice and medical supplies that the dumb bastards Johnson and McNamarra allowed to accumulate by denying us the ways and means to destroy the enemy.
Good point, Darth, South Viet Nam in 1968 was a very unsafe place to be no matter where you went, Saigon included. Three years later, in 1971, we had the entire country secured and you could go almost anywhere with no problem, right up to the DMZ.
Or at least that was my experience.