http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7349099/

I'm in a class about the Vietnam War now and I can't believe how dumb this War was. There was such an ignorance of basic issues by the US government I'm surprised that there wasn't eventually a complete overthrow of the government, and then to go and elect Richard Nixon? WTF. As bad as it's going to sound if you were to assign good guy and bad guy in this war, the US would have to be the bad guy. THe US was lucky to have a guy like McNamara in there for as long as they did to fight the Joint Chiefs and make sure it didn't turn nuclear.

 

don't hate me

Edited April 1, 200521 yr by KipWellsFan

I'm in a class about the Vietnam War now and I can't believe how dumb this War was.  There was such an ignorance of basic issues by the US government I'm surprised that there wasn't eventually a complete overthrow of the government, and then to go and elect Richard Nixon? WTF.  As bad as it's going to sound if you were to assign good guy and bad guy in this war, the US would have to be the bad guy.  THe US was lucky to have a guy like McNamara in there for as long as they did to fight the Joint Chiefs and make sure it didn't turn nuclear.

 

don't hate me

 

 

Good guy like McNamara?!?! OMG!!! I think you're confusing this with the Cuban missile crisis.

 

McNamara was a DISASTER!! Both him and Johnson.

 

The 2 of the would sit in the White house basement at all hours of the night picking out individual targets for the Air Force to bomb which had almost no military value but wouldn't make them look bad politically.

 

The 2 of them allowed the NVA to build, what was at the time, the most sophisticated and deadly air defense system in the world by placing air defense installations off limits to bombing until after they were completed. This policy directly led to the death and capture of hundreds of US pilots.

 

This and many other examples of their mismanagement were why this war was as long and deadly as it was.

 

The war itself was just, imho, but the way this cast of flunkies at the highest levels fought it was utterly tragic.

Good guy like McNamara?!?!  OMG!!!  I think you're confusing this with the Cuban missile crisis.

 

McNamara was a DISASTER!!  Both him and Johnson. 

 

The 2 of the would sit in the White house basement at all hours of the night picking out individual targets for the Air Force to bomb which had almost no military value but wouldn't make them look bad politically.

 

The 2 of them allowed the NVA to build, what was at the time, the most sophisticated and deadly air defense system in the world by placing air defense installations off limits to bombing until after they were completed.  This policy directly led to the death and capture of hundreds of US pilots.

 

This and many other examples of their mismanagement were why this war was as long and deadly as it was. 

 

The war itself was just, imho, but the way this cast of flunkies at the highest levels fought it was utterly tragic.

 

 

Yah I can't imagine how well the war would have went under Goldwater or Wallace! Like I said the War was extremely dumb and poorly executed. But bombing in the right place wouldn't have done s***, the NLF and PAVN were going to fight to the last man because they were fighting for their freedom, for most it wasn't for communism, they were fighting for their lives. And that's really the basic issue that was always ignored.

Let's not forget that the picking out of targets was to avoid World War III with China and Russia. Nixon on the other hand just said f*** it lets risk it all starting bombing Hanoi and mining Soviet utilized ports, risking it all. Of course as history says it didn't bring Russia or China in but it earned very little if anything. If a Republican administration was in power at the beginning of the war there is very little doubt in my mind that Nuclear weapons would have been used.

Edited April 1, 200521 yr by KipWellsFan

Kip, why would we hate you for expressing your opinion. People like myself and Nuke made a concious decision to defend your right to think what you want on any subject and defend our country. I hope that your class on the Vietnam War will include some alternative views and not just the typical "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place". If you talk to a lot of the commanders on the ground during Vietnam, you will get some interesting insights. The biggest of which is the fact that the congress and executive branch of the government need let the Military commanders in country and at the Pentagon, run the Tactical portion of any war. Strategic and Political constraints should be carefully applied, as to not effect the Tactical operations. I am not saying that the legislative branch of the Gov. should not have a say, but in the case of Vietnam, for example, the decision to stop bombing the North came at a time when most commanders on the ground were just starting to notice the logistical effects of the bombing on the enemy. I also seriously disagree with your Nuclear premise. I do not think that the Soviets would go to war over the sinking of a freighter or two. As far as the nuclear option for the U S, just wouldn't have happened, nuclear weapons did not have a good tactical application in Vietnam and we would never attack the Soviets or the Chinese on a Strategic level for a Tactical outcome in a different theater. I would be interested to hear what your instructor/professor has to say about the Tet offensive.

Kip, why would we hate you for expressing your opinion. People like myself and Nuke made a concious decision to defend your right to think what you want on any subject and defend our country.  I hope that your class on the Vietnam War will include some alternative views and not just the typical "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place".  If you talk to a lot of the commanders on the ground during Vietnam, you will get some interesting insights. The biggest of which is the fact that the congress and executive branch of the government need let the Military commanders in country and at the Pentagon, run the Tactical portion of any war. Strategic and Political constraints should be carefully applied, as to not effect the Tactical operations. I am not saying that the legislative branch of the Gov. should not have a say, but in the case of Vietnam, for example, the decision to stop bombing the North came at a time when most commanders on the ground were just starting to notice the logistical effects of the bombing on the enemy. I also seriously disagree with your Nuclear premise.  I do not think that the Soviets would go to war over the sinking of a freighter or two. As far as the nuclear option for the U S, just wouldn't have happened, nuclear weapons did not have a good tactical application in Vietnam and we would never attack the Soviets or the Chinese on a Strategic level for a Tactical outcome in a different theater. I would be interested to hear what your instructor/professor has to say about the Tet offensive.

 

 

Are you current or ex military yourself? If so then glad to know ya.

 

Navy Vet.

Being a free speech sort of guy and believing all Americans should speak out and voice their opinions, I have to admit she went too far. There is a dividing line between constructive criticism, just whining, and improper activities. I think she stepped over the line.

 

BTW, I wonder what Southeast Asia and the world would look like today if we didn't send so many Americans to their deaths and allowed Vietnam to form a communist government?

BTW, I wonder what Southeast Asia and the world would look like today if we didn't send so many Americans to their deaths and allowed Vietnam to form a communist government?

 

North Korea, perhaps?

 

Regarding the free speech issue, I'm not sure what's worse: Jane Fonda committing treason by aiding the North Vietnamese or KWF's Small Canadian Penis Syndrome causing him to constantly bash the U.S. government.

Edited April 1, 200521 yr by TheBigHurt35

Kip, why would we hate you for expressing your opinion. People like myself and Nuke made a concious decision to defend your right to think what you want on any subject and defend our country.  I hope that your class on the Vietnam War will include some alternative views and not just the typical "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place".  If you talk to a lot of the commanders on the ground during Vietnam, you will get some interesting insights. The biggest of which is the fact that the congress and executive branch of the government need let the Military commanders in country and at the Pentagon, run the Tactical portion of any war. Strategic and Political constraints should be carefully applied, as to not effect the Tactical operations. I am not saying that the legislative branch of the Gov. should not have a say, but in the case of Vietnam, for example, the decision to stop bombing the North came at a time when most commanders on the ground were just starting to notice the logistical effects of the bombing on the enemy. I also seriously disagree with your Nuclear premise.  I do not think that the Soviets would go to war over the sinking of a freighter or two. As far as the nuclear option for the U S, just wouldn't have happened, nuclear weapons did not have a good tactical application in Vietnam and we would never attack the Soviets or the Chinese on a Strategic level for a Tactical outcome in a different theater. I would be interested to hear what your instructor/professor has to say about the Tet offensive.

 

Well from what I've learned recently is that the US sort of knew there was an offensive coming from the Vietcong or whatever you want to call them. The problem was they thought it was only going to be at Khesanh and not widespread across the country as it was. The US and and ARVN were able to stave off the Vietcong including massive bombing around Khesanh. Massive casualties were inflicted upon the Vietcong and it took them a few years to regenerate their forces for further offensives. While the US/ARVN won this battle they lost it in public opinion. People thought the US was winning and when the Vietcong were able to stage this incredible offensive everyone was up in arms.

 

Also many commanders on the ground at that time were giving variable reports of what was really going on and I believe the CIA consistently reported that things weren't getting any better over there.

North Korea, perhaps?

 

No that's what would have happened to South Vietnam if Thieu remained in power in the South.

 

If only Ho Chi Minh had lived for like 30 more years.

Edited April 1, 200521 yr by KipWellsFan

I'm in a class about the Vietnam War now and I can't believe how dumb this War was.  There was such an ignorance of basic issues by the US government I'm surprised that there wasn't eventually a complete overthrow of the government, and then to go and elect Richard Nixon? WTF.  As bad as it's going to sound if you were to assign good guy and bad guy in this war, the US would have to be the bad guy.  THe US was lucky to have a guy like McNamara in there for as long as they did to fight the Joint Chiefs and make sure it didn't turn nuclear.

 

don't hate me

 

 

Do you ever have anything nice to say about the U.S.?

Do you ever have anything nice to say about the U.S.?

 

Get over youselves, I do when they deserve it.

Get over youselves, I do when they deserve it.

 

 

Don't take offense to it, it was just a simple question. I just get sick and tired of your posts complaing about the U.S. and all of those articles. Have you ever posted an article of goodness from the U.S.? I don't go around posting bad articles about Canada.

Don't take offense to it, it was just a simple question. I just get sick and tired of your posts complaing about the U.S. and all of those articles. Have you ever posted an article of goodness from the U.S.? I don't go around posting bad articles about Canada.

 

I haven't posted many true, but others do to balance it out. And I encourage you to post bad articles about Canada if you want.

Edited April 1, 200521 yr by KipWellsFan

I haven't posted many true, but others do to balance it out.  And I encourage you to post bad articles about Canada if you want.

 

 

Haha, no thanks, if I come across one, I'll post it, but I won't go looking for one.

I haven't posted many true, but others do to balance it out.  And I encourage you to post bad articles about Canada if you want.

 

Well, for one thing, that stuff you guys call "bacon"... It's f***ing HAM Gawddammit!!!

Well, for one thing, that stuff you guys call "bacon"... It's f***ing HAM Gawddammit!!! 

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. Don't Americans call ham bacon as well?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Don't Americans call ham bacon as well?

 

 

There's a difference between Bacon and Ham in America.

There's a difference between Bacon and Ham in America.

 

I thought there was here too.

I thought there was here too.

 

Here's the deal...

 

 

 

 

LMFAO!

Here's the deal...

 

 

 

 

 

Don't take offense to it, it was just a simple question. I just get sick and tired of your posts complaing about the U.S. and all of those articles. Have you ever posted an article of goodness from the U.S.? I don't go around posting bad articles about Canada.

 

No kidding. Shut the f*** up already.

 

And I encourage you to post bad articles about Canada if you want.

 

No thanks. That would involve us stooping to your level.

Edited April 1, 200521 yr by TheBigHurt35