DudeMan

well i agree with the first point, the marines would have swiftly ended that conflict, they are the best of the best and would have been up against a minor threat....

as for the celebration, not true, these conscripts (atleast on the ground were well armed) the only reason they were outmatched was because we have one of the most (if not the most) professional armed forces in the world, our soldiers who were outnumbered are dedicated (mostly) career soldiers, theirs were conscripts...

and why not celebrate, whatever the soldiers position he was shooting at a the British, so shoot back and rejoice when we win. i see n o problem here, you want to take pitty on an invading force because they were conscripted, its a tragedy it came to war, Maggy and the argentinian govt could have stopped it, but shooting back at an invading army is to be expected and winning to be celebrated.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

TheFeniX

They won because time is always against a larger invading enemy. The only thing the VC "won" was a political battle. In terms of military tactics, they got pasted every time the went up against the US.

What they could do was bog things down and create sympathy for their cause in the eyes of the American Public. The cost of winning the war would have been too high for the US by the wars end. But the cost for the Vietcong would have been horrendous had we kept action up there.

During the NVA's largest offensive (Tet) even using the element of surprise, they only really managed to take the city of Hue'. And when the Army came and took it back, we lost about 500 soldiers. The VC lost 7500.

Here.35,000 killed compared to 3,500: and they were winning? No, they were holding on for a political victory. If their tactics were so good, why were they dying 10 to 1?

The USSR suffered because their record on the battlefield is dismal at best.

__________________

DudeMan

sorry i agree with cookie on this despite what the politicians said, the USA lost the war in vietnam, not because they killed more people than you, but because you invaded and effectivly didt get what you wanted to achieve from the war,

during the pulling out the NVA were just walking into previously owned american territory.

the only reason they won was the guerilla tactics and the fact you could never find the bulk of the VC or NVA to hit , they used the layout too well and their soldiers unlike the US soldiers were used to dismal conditions and jungle warfare,

conventionally you would have smashed the **** out of them.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Root

At the end of the day, war is simply a political tool. Please don't think I'm smart mouthing you, but you've made my case for me. The VC won.

Root

__________________

TheFeniX

I never claimed the US won that war. My arguement is that we damn sure weren't losing it when we did, in fact, lose. We didn't lose because we were outmatch or outclassed. We lost because of politics. Whereas the military is an extension of the politcal power, you can't equate: "weak politicians = weak military." America had the resources and the man-power to reduce Vietnam's army to ashes, which is exactly what they were doing over there. It just wasn't fast enough for the short attention spans of Americans.

That's like claiming the American's outclassed the British during the American Revolution. No, we simply used time to our advantage. Had the British kept sending what troops they had, they could have eventually won at a horrible body count (but many more American lives would have been lost than British).

Now, conquering and holding are two separate issues.

NOTE: I am by no means implying that the Vietnam war wasn't a costly mistake for America. I just feel you should give credit where it's due.

__________________

NewsWrthy

Well the biggest reason the Confederacy lost the civil war and the US lost in Viet Nam had as much to do with over all attitude on how to handle the war The confederacy intended to hold back the North and defend them selves against " Northern Agression". You can not win a defensive war. No one wants to go to war but when you can not avoid it you must take the war to the enemy. Had the south moved strait to Washington after thier victory at the 1st Battle of Bull Run, the war would have ended swiftly. The south had limited manufacturing, which made a long hard to fight but in the first battles they were as well supplied as the north and lead by officers who were among the best the US has ever see. Thomas J " Stonwall" Jackson, was one of the greatest millitary leaders to ever take field. His ability to turn a battle to his favor was renouned. Soldies whose lines had been broken and units scattered, Men who were in full retreat would see him astride his horse, standing " Like a great Stone Wall" would rally and turn the tide.

__________________