• 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!

ISIS Boasts Air Strikes are not Effective

The US didn't surrender Saigon.

Again, at what point did the NVA, by force of arms defeat the US army?

They didn't have to. It was like a game of Capture the Flag in which one side just says "I don't want to play anymore" and leaves the game. The North won when it entered Saigon and raised its flag after we'd made a hasty retreat from the rooftop of our embassy.
 
Yeah, ok. I guess that's why ISIS had to invade Iraq.

What are you talking about?? I already proved to you that they came out of Iraq. They found a handy power vacuum in Syria and recruits, nice weaponry supplied to the insurgents from the west and made an overt advance on Iraqi territories and they don't intend to stop there. Look apdst, your going to defend George Bush long after he's dead and gone I'm sure. But it won't help the mess he created one bit.
 
What are you talking about?? I already proved to you that they came out of Iraq. They found a handy power vacuum in Syria and recruits, nice weaponry supplied to the insurgents from the west and made an overt advance on Iraqi territories and they don't intend to stop there. Look apdst, your going to defend George Bush long after he's dead and gone I'm sure. But it won't help the mess he created one bit.

What mess???Obama in 2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind A Stable And Self-Reliant Iraq’

Watch Joe Biden Call Iraq "One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" | The Daily Caller
 
What are you talking about?? I already proved to you that they came out of Iraq. They found a handy power vacuum in Syria and recruits, nice weaponry supplied to the insurgents from the west and made an overt advance on Iraqi territories and they don't intend to stop there. Look apdst, your going to defend George Bush long after he's dead and gone I'm sure. But it won't help the mess he created one bit.

No, they came out of Syria, to invade Iraq.
 
They didn't have to. It was like a game of Capture the Flag in which one side just says "I don't want to play anymore" and leaves the game. The North won when it entered Saigon and raised its flag after we'd made a hasty retreat from the rooftop of our embassy.

US forces didn't retreat from Vietnam.
 
Certainly not militarily, but the Tet Offensive was still a strategic victory for the North. Although we killed a lot of VC, they killed enough of us that the war became front and center during the 1968 presidential election, with Johnson forced to withdraw from seeking a second term while Nixon promised to end the war by bringing home "peace with honor." Subsequently, we did in Vietnam what we tried to do in Iraq (with the same pitiful result): a gradual draw-down of U.S. force strength coupled with the simultaneous training and support of indigenous forces. Remember "Vietnamization"? After Tet the war became not so much about "How do we win?" but "How do we get out?"

So if the original goal in sending troops to Vietnam was to keep South Vietnam from becoming a communist domino I'd say we lost.

Nixon's peace with honor - The Vietnam War and Its Impact

LOL...Tet was a massive debacle and a crushing defeat for The North. As I pointed out earlier, the VC was destroyed during the Tet Offensive.
 
US forces didn't retreat from Vietnam.

No, they just left, letting the communists win by default. Your stance reminds me of the old Stalinist members of the Russian military who said they didn't lose in Afghanistan. It was their feckless leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who withdrew Soviet forces with his tail between his legs, which allowed the Taliban to assume control of the country once the dust had settled..
 
No, they came out of Syria, to invade Iraq.

You've been proven wrong on that. They began in Iraq at a time mind you when there were no militant Islamic groups operating in Syria, before there ever was any Syrian protests, while junior was still struggling in Iraq.
 
LOL...Tet was a massive debacle and a crushing defeat for The North. As I pointed out earlier, the VC was destroyed during the Tet Offensive.

They were certainly diminished to the point of little more then menacing for the next few years. The TO of 1968 was a battle that the US won, but it was bloody and there were huge losses. After assuring Americans that the war would be won very soon, the TO was a big set back for Johnson, he withdrew his candidacy and his Vice President ran instead. The GOP threw out Nixon who campaigned on "peace with honor" (read: exit strategy) and he won the election, but he too might win a battle, but couldn't win the war. The NAV launched another massive attack in the middle of 72, while they were repelled again, again US losses were heavy and Americans were at the end of their rope, seeing that after years, and two administrations, this "conflict" couldn't be won, and they demanded, no, DEMANDED we get out. In the end, the objective of keeping south Vietnam an independent non communist state failed and the US came home. Many battles were won, but the war was lost, the objective failed and there was no soldier homecoming as with WW2. In fact it was rough on returning soldiers. So, short of accomplishing the objective, 58K soldiers died for nothing, and of course there was the treasure spent as well.

This is not unlike today's conflict, the Iraq war and the strength of the Islamic State, which is why they boast. Americans were told Al Qaeda would be a pushover, why a mere two months into it Bush was crowing that Al Qaeda was decimated. Yet there menacing attacks continued and increased in fact, at more then four hundred the year before the "surge". And those attacks, though lessened by the surge continued right on through Bush's final days in office and through our withdrawal. Al Qaeda and its various offshoots lives, are perhaps stronger then ever and menacing a lot more territory now then before US involvement in the region. Again, there was no victory, removing Saddam Hussein hasn't even been a victory, and a majority of Americans now feel that the Iraq war (which includes Saddam's removal) was a mistake so, whether or not the current airstrikes are having a negative affect on the Islamic State will remain to be seen. In the meantime, whether they are, or are not, of course the Islamic State will be declaring that they are not.
 
No, they just left, letting the communists win by default. Your stance reminds me of the old Stalinist members of the Russian military who said they didn't lose in Afghanistan. It was their feckless leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who withdrew Soviet forces with his tail between his legs, which allowed the Taliban to assume control of the country once the dust had settled..

We left...after we forced The North to sign an armistace.
 
If only... it all looks too cruel and violent for a democratic state.

No question. War has always been cruel and violent for any state.
 
We left...after we forced The North to sign an armistace.

And then they raised their flag over Saigon and rechristened it Ho Chi Minh City. But they didn't defeat us!
 
And then they raised their flag over Saigon and rechristened it Ho Chi Minh City. But they didn't defeat us!

That happened 2 years after we left.
 
The US didn't surrender Saigon.

Again, at what point did the NVA, by force of arms defeat the US army?

it won by simply existing. the americans could not claim any territory or capture disrupt the enemies ability to fight.

the united states was unable to achieve the Vietnamese equivalent of the german army's experience at the Falaise pocket encirclement.
 
it won by simply existing. the americans could not claim any territory or capture disrupt the enemies ability to fight.

But, we did interrupt their ability to fight.

the united states was unable to achieve the Vietnamese equivalent of the german army's experience at the Falaise pocket encirclement.

Ok, at what point were American forces encircled and which division/army corps/army group surrender, or was destroyed?
 
But, we did interrupt their ability to fight.
the united states was unable to achieve the Vietnamese equivalent of the german army's experience at the Falaise pocket encirclement.[/QUOTE]

Ok, at what point were American forces encircled and which division/army corps/army group surrender, or was destroyed?[/QUOTE]

the question i was asking was when did the united states army ever manage to surround a major portion of the north Vietnamese army, destroy it, and actually achieve concrete results?
 
the united states was unable to achieve the Vietnamese equivalent of the german army's experience at the Falaise pocket encirclement.

Ok, at what point were American forces encircled and which division/army corps/army group surrender, or was destroyed?[/QUOTE]

the question i was asking was when did the united states army ever manage to surround a major portion of the north Vietnamese army, destroy it, and actually achieve concrete results?[/QUOTE]

We destroyed an NVA division at the Ia Drang Valley.

Encirclements aren't the only way to destroy the enemy, and his will to fight.

We destroyed the VC without an encirclement.
 
Ok, at what point were American forces encircled and which division/army corps/army group surrender, or was destroyed?

the question i was asking was when did the united states army ever manage to surround a major portion of the north Vietnamese army, destroy it, and actually achieve concrete results?[/QUOTE]

We destroyed an NVA division at the Ia Drang Valley.

Encirclements aren't the only way to destroy the enemy, and his will to fight.

We destroyed the VC without an encirclement.[/QUOTE]

apparently the results of our victories did not seem to register back at home. maybe public opinion would have been on the side of the army if the army was achieving decisive victories like the ones the u.s navy had achieved at the battle of Midway and the Philippine sea during world war two.
 
the question i was asking was when did the united states army ever manage to surround a major portion of the north Vietnamese army, destroy it, and actually achieve concrete results?

We destroyed an NVA division at the Ia Drang Valley.

Encirclements aren't the only way to destroy the enemy, and his will to fight.

We destroyed the VC without an encirclement.[/QUOTE]

apparently the results of our victories did not seem to register back at home. maybe public opinion would have been on the side of the army if the army was achieving decisive victories like the ones the u.s navy had achieved at the battle of Midway and the Philippine sea during world war two.[/QUOTE]

We were achieving decisive victories, but the anti-war propaganda machine suppressed that information. You believe the Tet Offensive was a victory for the communists and another poster believes we retreated from the Viet Cong in 1974. That goes to show how powerful that machine was; they damn near re-wrote history.
 
We destroyed an NVA division at the Ia Drang Valley.

Encirclements aren't the only way to destroy the enemy, and his will to fight.

We destroyed the VC without an encirclement.


We were achieving decisive victories, but the anti-war propaganda machine suppressed that information. You believe the Tet Offensive was a victory for the communists and another poster believes we retreated from the Viet Cong in 1974. That goes to show how powerful that machine was; they damn near re-wrote history.

you think any army in history can fight a war without the support of their fellow countrymen at home? the Tet offense was a shock to the american public because we were told that we were winning the war by our government.
 
you think any army in history can fight a war without the support of their fellow countrymen at home? the Tet offense was a shock to the american public because we were told that we were winning the war by our government.

That's exactly the way it was. And a big upset for Johnson, and the main reason he withdrew his candidacy.
 
you think any army in history can fight a war without the support of their fellow countrymen at home? the Tet offense was a shock to the american public because we were told that we were winning the war by our government.

We were winning the war. We won the Tet Offensive. The ARVN won the Easter Offensive in 1972. From January 1968 to April 1972, the North lost 400,000 troops. A coujtry the size of North Vietnam can't sustain those losses.
 
We were winning the war. We won the Tet Offensive. The ARVN won the Easter Offensive in 1972. From January 1968 to April 1972, the North lost 400,000 troops. A coujtry the size of North Vietnam can't sustain those losses.


yet the united states did not attempt to claim ultimate victory and seize hannoi.
 
Back
Top Bottom