• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walter Cronkite, Iconic Anchorman, Dies

The Tet offensive is more famed for its psychological effect on congress and the US public rather than its military facts. It helped with the pull out, that's for sure. A war isn't won purely by the military, either. Military gains mean nothing without a congress and a people supporting it.

RIP, Cronkite.
 
Stay classy, conservatives. :doh

You stay classy liberals.

yay, its fun to ignore evidence to the contrary where numerous conservatives...even some of the most rabid ones...WERE being classy in this thread and instead focus on one that decides to act like a jerk and then act like a jerk yourself to try and use it to insult all conservatives. Very classy of you, I mean, the pure definition of class. [/roll]

Soooo, you're calling me out for calling him out?

And the difference is what?

If you don't want me calling out conservatives when they write something stupid, you can:

a. warn them to stop screwing up threads

b. stop encouraging them

c. change the forum name to onlydumbconservativescanposthere.com
 

That's the opinion of Melvin Laird with the emphasis on opinion. The "support" that we withdrew was the active combat by our forces we still gve them equipment. The funding that congress withdrew was American combat forces. The sad fact remains historically correct and that is that the South Vietnamese government did not have good support from it's own people. That is why I have allways said that we lost the political war in Vietnam.
 
His, "famous reversal", in 1968 is the defeatism I'm talking about. He said that the war couldn't be won, while we had soldiers on the battlefield. That's defeatism, in every sense of the word. He encouraged the enemy to keep fighting.

That's your words, lets see what Cronkite actually said, and if there is something he said that wasn't 100% accurate, feel free to attack.

Walter Cronkite, Feb. 27, 1968

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we’d like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw.

Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff.

On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won’t show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi’s winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that — negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms.

For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer’s almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.

On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy’s intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.
 
Cronkite said the war had become "no better than a stalemate", which was true. The politicians (both left and right) wouldn't do the necessary things needed to win a real war.

If you were there and saw fellow Americans die by the hundreds to take a few mountaintops just to leave the next day to let the enemy regain control of them again, what would you call it?

And what was the victory objective? 50,000 troops were dead and the North Koreans were stronger than when then war had started. They had unlimited backing from China, so how many more dead would you say that little chunk of land in south Asia was worth?
I hear ya brother. You tell'em. Tell'em bout the people that ran that war too.
 
Obviously, asn uninformed opinion. An opinion that, as I proved, encouraged the enemy to keep fighting, costing no telling how many more American lives.



You're wrong. The ARVN ran out of gasoline and ammo. They well had the support of the Vietnamese people. Remember all those people mobbing the aircraft leaving Tan Son Nhut Airbase? They weren't running after those planes because of their elation at the prospect of the Communist victory. How 'bout all those boat people who left Vietnam on rafts made of truck tires? You think they took that trip, because life under the Communists was so sweet and rosey?



No, he wasn't and history has proven that. Try learning about the events you lived through, sometime.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite]Walter Cronkite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

First of all you can take your suggestion about what I should " learn " about what "lived through" and find yourself a secure location for it because if you want to debate then debate by showing the people you disagree with the same dignitiy and respect that yopu expect them to show you and which most people have shown you up to that last post of yours. I will debate with your opinions but there is no reason why you or anyone else needs to disparage any other poster just becasue you hapen to disagree. Dispute their facts by showing you own or argue your opinion over theirs and keep this a true debate forum not a urination contest.

I suggest that you and anyone inteested u read an extract of the salient part of was Cronkite had to say:
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.[30]"

Cronkite's statement was in no way defeatist but his assessment was realistist. It was harshly realistic but it was realistic.
 
The Tet offensive is more famed for its psychological effect on congress and the US public rather than its military facts. It helped with the pull out, that's for sure. A war isn't won purely by the military, either. Military gains mean nothing without a congress and a people supporting it.

RIP, Cronkite.

Especially when people such as yourself support that idiotic mentality.
 
That's your words, lets see what Cronkite actually said, and if there is something he said that wasn't 100% accurate, feel free to attack.

Joe you are playing a very unfair game here by putting facts out there. How dare you use facts and truth in a debate forum ? Whatsamattaforyou !! LOL !
 
The Tet offensive is more famed for its psychological effect on congress and the US public rather than its military facts. It helped with the pull out, that's for sure. A war isn't won purely by the military, either. Military gains mean nothing without a congress and a people supporting it.

RIP, Cronkite.

You are a bit correct in that the military victory was not there byThe COMMIES with TET 68 but I must say that they did show that they couls coordinate a countrywide attack. We also need to remeber that the Communists were not in a position to hold targets for any lenght of time they just wanted to show that they could hit "everywhere".
 
So Folks may I suggest that f we all want to discuss The Tet offense that we either go to the Miltary Section or Histiry Section and start a thread hell i'll start one if everyone wants to discuss this but I will tell you this most of you are atad off base with what your talking about. But I iwll not go into in this thread.

As for the topic of this thread I was never a fan of Mr. Cronkite he cost us the War in Nam and i'llleave at that.
 
You are a bit correct in that the military victory was not there byThe COMMIES with TET 68 but I must say that they did show that they couls coordinate a countrywide attack. We also need to remeber that the Communists were not in a position to hold targets for any lenght of time they just wanted to show that they could hit "everywhere".


We must also remember that even the North Vietnamese recognized that Tet was a massive failure.
 
That's the opinion of Melvin Laird with the emphasis on opinion. The "support" that we withdrew was the active combat by our forces we still gve them equipment. The funding that congress withdrew was American combat forces. The sad fact remains historically correct and that is that the South Vietnamese government did not have good support from it's own people. That is why I have allways said that we lost the political war in Vietnam.

Our statements need not be mutually exclusive. The ARVN won some serious battles without us but they couldn't continue without our promised support.

The proof lay in the 1972 Easter Offensive. This was the biggest offensive push of the war, greater in magnitude than either the 1968 Tet offensive or the final assault of 1975. The US provided massive air and naval support and there were inevitable failures on the part of some ARVN units, but all in all, the South Vietnamese fought well. Then, having blunted the communist thrust, they recaptured territory that had been lost to Hanoi. Finally, so effective was the eleven-day "Christmas bombing" campaign (LINEBACKER II) later that year that the British counterinsurgency expert, Sir Robert Thompson exclaimed, "you had won the war. It was over."

Three years later, despite the heroic performance of some ARVN units, South Vietnam collapsed against a much weaker, cobbled-together NVA offensive. What happened to cause this reversal?

First, the Nixon administration, in its rush to extricate the country from Vietnam, forced South Vietnam to accept a cease fire that permitted NVA forces to remain in South Vietnam. Then in an act that still shames the United States to this day, Congress cut off military and economic assistance to South Vietnam. Finally, President Nixon resigned over Watergate and his successor, constrained by congressional action, defaulted on promises to respond with force to North Vietnamese violations of the peace terms. Mr. Sorley describes in detail the logistical and operational consequences for the ARVN of our having starved them of promised support for three years.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.553/pub_detail.asp
 
VN was not a total loss for the U.S. The main objective was to keep the Soviets from building a major naval base in VN, and that objective was achieved, by Nixon and Kissinger in 1971. Winning the civil war was patently impossible for an outside power, but the strategic goal was more or less settled. Many times just breaking even is a plus when it comes to foreign policy goals, and we broke better than even in VN, despite taking a hit in prestige and political ambitions.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The line of being civil is dangerously close to being crossed here. This be your warning mateys.
 
VN was not a total loss for the U.S. The main objective was to keep the Soviets from building a major naval base in VN, and that objective was achieved, by Nixon and Kissinger in 1971. Winning the civil war was patently impossible for an outside power, but the strategic goal was more or less settled. Many times just breaking even is a plus when it comes to foreign policy goals, and we broke better than even in VN, despite taking a hit in prestige and political ambitions.

I don't think the Soviets ever had a chance to develop influence inside VN. Throughout the war we claimed we were fighting Communism, when all we were doing is meddling in a fairly trifling civil war in the middle of nowhere.
 
I don't think the Soviets ever had a chance to develop influence inside VN. Throughout the war we claimed we were fighting Communism, when all we were doing is meddling in a fairly trifling civil war in the middle of nowhere.

Who do you think was selling all that Soviet hardware to the North Vietnamese?
 
I don't think the Soviets ever had a chance to develop influence inside VN. Throughout the war we claimed we were fighting Communism, when all we were doing is meddling in a fairly trifling civil war in the middle of nowhere.

Hmm Really so I guess all of those Mig17 and 21 were flown by the NVAF right and let me see where did all of those SA-2 and SA-4 come from hmmm, oh and all of those nice AK's and RPG's and MKARV were did they all come from then.
 
Hmm Really so I guess all of those Mig17 and 21 were flown by the NVAF right and let me see where did all of those SA-2 and SA-4 come from hmmm, oh and all of those nice AK's and RPG's and MKARV were did they all come from then.

The Taliban use American weapons too, how much influence do we have with them?
 
The Taliban doesn't use American weapons.

Oh no??


U.S. Weapons May Be Falling Into Taliban Hands

Confirmed: Pakistani Taliban Using Indian/US Weapons
Large caches of weapons of US and INDIAN origin have been found as the security forces completely secure control of Mingora city, destroying various training centers of terrorists and killing important militant commanders, the military said.The Americans have their excuses in order – Earlier this year it was revealed that over 200,000 US weapons – including assault rifles and grenade launchers – are ‘missing’ from the US army’s inventory in Afghanistan. The US army is unable to provide serial numbers for a large number of the missing weapons and no records have been maintained for the location or disposition for the rest.
Confirmed: Pakistani Taliban Using Indian/US Weapons Pak Alert Press
 
I don't think the Soviets ever had a chance to develop influence inside VN. Throughout the war we claimed we were fighting Communism, when all we were doing is meddling in a fairly trifling civil war in the middle of nowhere.


North VN was very much a Soviet puppet state, not a Chinese one; the VN hate China, whatever alliances of convenience developed re the U.S. The Soviets and the Chinese were also in the middle of their own little 'cold war' with each other in the late 50's and early 60's, and the Soviet interests in North VN were part of that tension.

The Soviet goal was to build a major naval base in VN, and that was a very serious strategic threat; any look at major sea lanes and trading routes will show this, so it was more than just 'a fairly trifling civil war in the middle of nowhere', it was a serious geo-political and militarily important issue at the time. The main reason there wasn't one built there was our involvement, and the only reason we left was Kissinger's agreements with the Chinese to limit Soviet influence in the area.
 
North VN was very much a Soviet puppet state, not a Chinese one; the VN hate China, whatever alliances of convenience developed re the U.S. The Soviets and the Chinese were also in the middle of their own little 'cold war' with each other in the late 50's and early 60's, and the Soviet interests in North VN were part of that tension.

The Soviet goal was to build a major naval base in VN, and that was a very serious strategic threat; any look at major sea lanes and trading routes will show this, so it was more than just 'a fairly trifling civil war in the middle of nowhere', it was a serious geo-political and militarily important issue at the time. The main reason there wasn't one built there was our involvement, and the only reason we left was Kissinger's agreements with the Chinese to limit Soviet influence in the area.

The Communists won, so if Russia wanted a naval base in VN they would have one. Funny, I never heard this "naval base" story before.
 
What does all this have to do with Walter Cronkite? Did you know that Cronkite supported the concept of a one world government?
 
What does all this have to do with Walter Cronkite? Did you know that Cronkite supported the concept of a one world government?

I heard that today while watching his 8 part retrospective.
 
Back
Top Bottom