• 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!

Single most important factor in determining the outcome of a war.

The #1 war determining factor is:

  • Understanding the culture and the people of the enemy

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Wealth to fund the war

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Military strategy

    Votes: 8 34.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Total voters
    23
Dittohead not! said:
link

Yes, making erroneous claims does damage one's credibility.
Click to expand...

:lol:... the author of your article doesn't know the difference between the NVA and the VC... period.

nobody surrendered to the VC ... the VC from 68 to 75 were , at best, an adjunct to the NVA/PAVN...as a fighting force, they were destroyed in 68' ( they continued to exist, just not as an effective fighting force.)

Saigon fell to the NVA (PAVN)... specifically, elements of the 324th, 325th, 304th, and 711th divisions.... not the VC


"surrendered to the Vietcong"... hilarious :lamo
 
Grim17 said:
I think it's the support of the public and their willingness to persevere that's most important... at least as far as the US is concerned.
Click to expand...

The will to win; right?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
1.)The whole list is flawed because of your opinion?
2.)You know when Saigon fell correct? In 1975. You know when the Viet Cong dissolved? In 1976. You know why? The war was over and the country was united under another government. They won and became part of a united Vietnam.
Click to expand...

he's right, overall... the VC, as a fighting force, were pretty much destroyed during Tet...

they continued to exist for a number years, but not as a fighting force.....they were primarily relegated to communist apparatus duties in the rural regions.
 
Thrilla said:
he's right, overall... the VC, as a fighting force, were pretty much destroyed during Tet...

they continued to exist for a number years, but not as a fighting force.....they were primarily relegated to communist apparatus duties in the rural regions.
Click to expand...

Thats simply not true. 2 years later they mounted major successfull offenses, and even retook and reopened the Ho Chi Minh trail.
 
eaglestar said:
So discussing with a friend of mine, the argument came up:

According to him:
- The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is understanding the people and culture of the opponent.

According to me:
- The single most important factor in deciding the outcome of a war is wealth to fund it.

So, there will be occasions in history were one or the other mattered the most, but overall I still think money makes the final decision.


My examples were Rome, England, the US. His focused on Indian kings (asia) and the soviet union.

Tell me your thoughts and examples.
Click to expand...

The people and the culture are irrelevant.

What difference does the other countries people and culture make when they are being obliterated by superior fire power?


A short war is based primarily on firepower, training and tactics.

A long war is based more on logistics, technological innovation and manufacturing...but good training is always a big plus. In a long war, if you cannot out build or 'out-technology' your opponent, you probably ain't gonna win.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Thats simply not true. 2 years later they mounted major successfull offenses, and even retook and reopened the Ho Chi Minh trail.
Click to expand...

Let's see a link telling about those major offensives
 
How many people are we willing to let the Generals and the military kill and how fast. That's what determines every wars outcome.

The US could have won the Vietnam war in less than a year if the generals had been allowed to do even 70% of what they wanted to do. That's the case in every war.

How many people are you willing to let the Generals kill and how fast? That is the sole thing that will determine if you win or lose.


Simply put the cultured, intellectual West doesn't let their generals win wars anymore. They micromanage them into defeat from cushy chairs back in proverbial Rome.
 
apdst said:
Let's see a link telling about those major offensives
Click to expand...

he's unaware that every offensive post Tet 68' was an NVA offensive, including Tet 69'
he's also unaware that the VC from 68-75 had the primary task of pacification of the rural southern zones, except for the southern NVA regulars who were folded into Northern units for future offensives/counteroffensives.
 
Thrilla said:
:lol:... the author of your article doesn't know the difference between the NVA and the VC... period.

nobody surrendered to the VC ... the VC from 68 to 75 were , at best, an adjunct to the NVA/PAVN...as a fighting force, they were destroyed in 68' ( they continued to exist, just not as an effective fighting force.)

Saigon fell to the NVA (PAVN)... specifically, elements of the 324th, 325th, 304th, and 711th divisions.... not the VC


"surrendered to the Vietcong"... hilarious :lamo
Click to expand...

Here's some more hilarity:

April 30, 1975 - At 8:35 a.m., the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam. North Vietnamese troops pour into Saigon and encounter little resistance. By 11 a.m., the red and blue Viet Cong flag flies from the presidential palace. President Minh broadcasts a message of unconditional surrender. The war is over.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
The only thing your link proves, is that--like I said--it was 4 years after The Tet Offensive before the commies launched their next offensive.

There's nothing there about, "major Viet Cong offensives", in 1970.
Click to expand...

:naughty lets not be dishonest here.
"The Viet Cong was destroyed in 1968"
-That statement you made is clearly wrong. Shows that the Viet Cong was very much a force around after 1968.
-But now lets look into the offensives.
"Viet Cong attack 110 targets throughout South Vietnam including Saigon."
" Viet Cong begin a new offensive attacking 150 targets throughout South Vietnam."
 
Dittohead not! said:

Here's some more hilarity:
Click to expand...

You mean this?

1975-the-south-vietnamese-capital-of-saigon-ho-chi-minh-city-fell-to-north-vietnamese-troops-during-the-vietnam-war.jpg


Do those guys look like farmers in black pajamas?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:naughty lets not be dishonest here.
"The Viet Cong was destroyed in 1968"
-That statement you made is clearly wrong. Shows that the Viet Cong was very much a force around after 1968.
-But now lets look into the offensives.
"Viet Cong attack 110 targets throughout South Vietnam including Saigon."
" Viet Cong begin a new offensive attacking 150 targets throughout South Vietnam."
Click to expand...

That wasn't the VC. Those infiltrators were members of the NVA, conducting operations much like what American SF units would do.

Now, show us those major VC offensives.
 
braindrain said:
Just in case you didn't know Veterans Today is a piece of crap anti-Jew, pro Russian, conspiracy theory site.

I probably wouldn't use it to much in the future.
Click to expand...

A pro-Russian site does a piece on Russians raping millions of German women?

Something doesn't quite add up there. Ya think?

It doesn't take away from the fact that those events actually happened.
 
apdst said:
That wasn't the VC. Those infiltrators were members of the NVA, conducting operations much like what American SF units would do.

Now, show us those major VC offensives.
Click to expand...

:lamo They werent? Please show me any evidence that they were not actually VC.. Show me evidence other than your claims... Do you have anything to back up the claims you are making?
 
apdst said:
A pro-Russian site does a piece on Russians raping millions of German women?

Something doesn't quite add up there. Ya think?

It doesn't take away from the fact that those events actually happened.
Click to expand...

Not saying it does but VT is a total piece of crap site.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo They werent? Please show me any evidence that they were not actually VC.. Show me evidence other than your claims... Do you have anything to back up the claims you are making?
Click to expand...

I already have, but you refuse to learn anything, because you already know it all. A failing common among Liberals.

Hell, you still believe The Revolutionary War was a guerilla war.
 
apdst said:
I already have, but you refuse to learn anything, because you already know it all. A failing common among Liberals.

Hell, you still believe The Revolutionary War was a guerilla war.
Click to expand...

No you havnet. All you have done is ask questions, and make claims. But as always you just blame everything on "liberals"....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No you havnet. All you have done is ask questions, and make claims. But as always you just blame everything on "liberals"....
Click to expand...

When it comes to the erroneous information you've posted, its nothing more than Leftist disinformation. I think its motivated by the fact that Libbos see The Viet Cong as the good guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom