• 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!

Changing Attitudes On Veterans Day

I don't know where to start.

First of all, when we had a draft the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and within the Army the 173rd, 101st, 82nd, Ranger School grads, Special Forces, Helicopter pilots, fixed-wing pilots, etc., etc., were all voluntary. It wasn't a military made up exclusively of draftees. Not by a long shot. So something tells me we could have covered Afghanistan without much of a problem.

Back to Vietnam. Again, Vietnam could have been won with a conventional force. There was no need fora "myriad groups of specialized forces" or the total destruction of the north by "doing a cUrtis LeMay". I served in both a conventional infantry unit and a specialized unit. The way the NVA operated a conventional force could have prevailed with the availability of enough troops. But, as we know, that level couldn't be reached because the public wouldn't allow it.

You're mixing two problems. The fact that Vietnam wasn't a wise war to get involved in is one problem. The question of whether or not a fully committed conventional force could have prevailed is another. I'm only debating the latter.

I never said the US armed forces during conscription consisted "exclusively" of drafted personnel into the Army. So something tells me you either didn't read my post because maybe it had too much actual stuff in it or you need some reading improvement.


The US armed forces consisted of 8,744,000 service members during the Vietnam Era -- 1964 into 1975 -- of whom 3,403,000 were deployed to Southeast Asia.

From a pool of approximately 27 million, the draft raised 2,215,000 men for military service (in the United States, South Vietnam, and elsewhere) during the Vietnam War era.

I myself volunteered via Rotc beginning in 1962 and on commissioning in 1966 volunteered (by invitation) for the 3d Inf. Reg. The Old Guard of the Army in the Military District of Washington DC. The Army I signed up with and joined consisted of conscripts whose serial number prefix was US (United States) and volunteers whose serial number prefix was RA (Regular Army). So your statement to me in your post about not "exclusively" draftees is ridiculous.

So back to the numbers. If all of those men whether volunteers or conscripts weren't enough, how many troops did you want in order to wage your own categorization of a "conventional war"? It was a conventional war the US fought in VN and the US lost it for the many reasons pointed out from the time up to the present analyses and retrospection.

In WW II the US had 15 million active duty personnel engaged in fighting in North Africa, the Med, Europe and in the Asia-Pacific, yet during the VN War Era 1964-1975 the US mustered 8.7 million. So did you want 15 million or maybe want more than a 15 million force strength to wage the "conventional war" in VN that you would have waged as opposed to the conventional war the US did in fact conduct in losing it.
 
I never said the US armed forces during conscription consisted "exclusively" of drafted personnel into the Army. So something tells me you either didn't read my post because maybe it had too much actual stuff in it or you need some reading improvement.


The US armed forces consisted of 8,744,000 service members during the Vietnam Era -- 1964 into 1975 -- of whom 3,403,000 were deployed to Southeast Asia.

From a pool of approximately 27 million, the draft raised 2,215,000 men for military service (in the United States, South Vietnam, and elsewhere) during the Vietnam War era.

I myself volunteered via Rotc beginning in 1962 and on commissioning in 1966 volunteered (by invitation) for the 3d Inf. Reg. The Old Guard of the Army in the Military District of Washington DC. The Army I signed up with and joined consisted of conscripts whose serial number prefix was US (United States) and volunteers whose serial number prefix was RA (Regular Army). So your statement to me in your post about not "exclusively" draftees is ridiculous.

So back to the numbers. If all of those men whether volunteers or conscripts weren't enough, how many troops did you want in order to wage your own categorization of a "conventional war"? It was a conventional war the US fought in VN and the US lost it for the many reasons pointed out from the time up to the present analyses and retrospection.

In WW II the US had 15 million active duty personnel engaged in fighting in North Africa, the Med, Europe and in the Asia-Pacific, yet during the VN War Era 1964-1975 the US mustered 8.7 million. So did you want 15 million or maybe want more than a 15 million force strength to wage the "conventional war" in VN that you would have waged as opposed to the conventional war the US did in fact conduct in losing it.

Ha ha, you gotta be kidding me. I take it you didn't serve in Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Ha ha, you gotta be kidding me. I take it you didn't serve in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War was extremely unpopular where I grew up in Massachusetts dave. It seemed almost everyone around me was throwing something in Harvard Square and Brattle Square and on Com Ave outside BU and calling LBJ names then hollering at Nixon for prolonging the war until after his reelection in 1972. Nixon prolonging the war past 1972 was the major reason for the disaster of death the VN War became.

Gen. John Kelly retired is from Southie so he was predictably a right winger and a war hawk who enlisted in the Marines and came out an E-5 who continued on to UMass and Naval Rotc then to Marine OCS. It was Trump and Kelly who made a hash of a mess of the funeral of SGT La David T. Johnson of the 3rd Special Forces Group who was killed in Africa while on assignment back in 2017.

We can talk strategy and tactics forever but it was Nixon who prolonged the war until after his reelection in 1972 who lost the war. There's irony there given Nixon said in 1969 he wasn't going to be the first Potus to lose a war. Yes he was.
 
The Vietnam War was extremely unpopular where I grew up in Massachusetts dave. It seemed almost everyone around me was throwing something in Harvard Square and Brattle Square and on Com Ave outside BU and calling LBJ names then hollering at Nixon for prolonging the war until after his reelection in 1972. Nixon prolonging the war past 1972 was the major reason for the disaster of death the VN War became.

Gen. John Kelly retired is from Southie so he was predictably a right winger and a war hawk who enlisted in the Marines and came out an E-5 who continued on to UMass and Naval Rotc then to Marine OCS. It was Trump and Kelly who made a hash of a mess of the funeral of SGT La David T. Johnson of the 3rd Special Forces Group who was killed in Africa while on assignment back in 2017.

We can talk strategy and tactics forever but it was Nixon who prolonged the war until after his reelection in 1972 who lost the war. There's irony there given Nixon said in 1969 he wasn't going to be the first Potus to lose a war. Yes he was.


Tangmo, I'm from Boston. I'm very familiar with what went on in Harvard Square and on Comm. Ave. I was in Vietnam in '67 and '68 and was sitting in professor Howard Zinn's class in '70 so my view is a rather broad one. And again, I'm not debating policy I'm debating only whether or not a conventional army, such as we had at the time, that included conscripts, could have defeated the North Vietnamese.
 
Tangmo, I'm from Boston. I'm very familiar with what went on in Harvard Square and on Comm. Ave. I was in Vietnam in '67 and '68 and was sitting in professor Howard Zinn's class in '70 so my view is a rather broad one. And again, I'm not debating policy I'm debating only whether or not a conventional army, such as we had at the time, that included conscripts, could have defeated the North Vietnamese.

Your info in your name box to the left says "Boston, Massachusetts" which is why I wrote the post to you that I wrote. I posted to you as a neighbor of sorts who would certainly know and recognize my references. I'd only add at this point you're not the only one with a rather broad view of the time, the personages, the circumstances. Yet despite your claim to be debating you're not doing that, as your post #127 makes absolutely clear.

So I'd invite you to begin some measure of debate that addresses my points in scrolling that address your one note theme you continue to recite and repeat without any supporting reasoning or rationale. Most specifically, if 8.7 million troops in the US armed forces from 1964 to 1975 weren't enough to win the conventional war that was fought, then how many of 'em would you have needed to win your conventional war you insist would have done the trick in VN. I'd noted US had 15 million under arms in WW II and I asked if that might instead be enough for you to win your conventional war despite the conventional war that was fought and lost by the US in VN.

You keep carrying on about a total commitment that would have won your conventional war in VN but you don't say what specifically that would have entailed. So your posts dismiss everything while you advocate nothing except more of the same of the failed approach US took to the war in VN.
 
So I'd invite you to begin some measure of debate that addresses my points in scrolling that address your one note theme you continue to recite and repeat without any supporting reasoning or rationale. Most specifically, if 8.7 million troops in the US armed forces from 1964 to 1975 weren't enough to win the conventional war that was fought, then how many of 'em would you have needed to win your conventional war you insist would have done the trick in VN. .

Do you realize how obtuse that is? The point is how many grunts were on the ground in Vietnam itself, not how many served around the globe during the era. Good lord man. Out of around 500,000 US troops in-country only aporx 50,000 were actually in the bush fighting. Not enough to go up against every infantryman North Vietnam could infiltrate, plus varying numbers of VC depending on the year and month. So lets start with that realization, which should have been obvious, and go from there.

As for commitment? What the hell do you think commitment means? It means the desire to do whatever it takes to win.
 
Last edited:
Do you realize how obtuse that is? The point is how many grunts were on the ground in Vietnam itself, not how many served around the globe during the era. Good lord man. Out of around 500,000 US troops in-country only aporx 50,000 were actually in the bush fighting. Not enough to go up against every infantryman North Vietnam could infiltrate, plus varying numbers of VC depending on the year and month. So lets start with that realization, which should have been obvious, and go from there.

As for commitment? What the hell do you think commitment means? It means the desire to do whatever it takes to win.

That is a wild statement that disqualifies you from any position of military command, leadership, responsibility.
 
First of all, anyone trying to equate Vietnam to Afghanistan is comparing apples to oranges. Vietnam was fought in a dense jungle, against an enemy who was heavily supplied by both Russia and China, with strict rules of engagement that seriously hindered our ability to engage the enemy. Afghanistan was fought in mountainous country against poorly equipped combatants backed by no major governments.

The enemy in Vietnam suffered 1,146,250 casualties. In Afghanistan they suffered about 80,000 casualties.

The US could have won a conventional war in Vietnam. They won every major battle. However in order to have won it they would have had to lift the restrictions that held us back.
 
Tangmo, I'm from Boston. I'm very familiar with what went on in Harvard Square and on Comm. Ave. I was in Vietnam in '67 and '68 and was sitting in professor Howard Zinn's class in '70 so my view is a rather broad one. And again, I'm not debating policy I'm debating only whether or not a conventional army, such as we had at the time, that included conscripts, could have defeated the North Vietnamese.

Could we have? Sure. We lost Vietnam at the strategic level, had we went in with a better strategy and with a better consideration for the geopolitical situation we might have emerged victorious, or perhaps a situation similar to Korea where Vietnam remains split to this day.

But that would have required a level of foresight, planning, and leadership that we didn't have.
 
Could we have? Sure. We lost Vietnam at the strategic level, had we went in with a better strategy and with a better consideration for the geopolitical situation we might have emerged victorious, or perhaps a situation similar to Korea where Vietnam remains split to this day.

But that would have required a level of foresight, planning, and leadership that we didn't have.

Yeah, the North was in no mood to surrender and I didn't blame them.
 
Back
Top Bottom