Best President in US History?

[Yakman]

That's like those idiots who say Germany won WW2 because they dominate the EU.

Idiots have a place too.

 

[Yakman]

We won the Cold War. We accomplished none of our longterm objectives in Vietnam, at least partly because I'm not convinced we ever had any.

Take it on the chin man. We fought a bad war in Nam, we never should have fought Communism there in the first place, we put hundreds of thousands of our young men into a situation where the short term objectives were impossible and the long term objectives didn't exist, we failed to protect the South Vietnamese people in any meaningful sense. killed a whole lot of people that didn't need to die, and Ho Chi Minh still took Saigon. Any victory we had was Pyrrhic. Own up, man up, move on.

it's a joke.

 

[yerm]

That's like those idiots who say Germany won WW2 because they dominate the EU.

Japan won WW2.

 

[stevieji]

And who won the Vietnam War? Bell Helicopter.

 

[Dinglehoff]

This doesn't make any sense. They weren't faced with anything like a world war, or even the Korean War - they were looking at a low-level insurgency and reacted accordingly. It just goes far beyond even the fantastical realms of counter-factual speculation, to imagine the sort of response at the outset that you're suggesting. Better by far to have stayed out of that unfortunate country entirely.

So because it wasn't a world war or korea; there's no way for anyone to figure out how to stop the enemy from moving men and supplies into the south, or to figure out how and why to invade the north, or figure out what China would do and how we could prepare for that? That's completely disingenuous.

You ignored my attempt to drag this thread back to the subject heading - is it Kennedy you hold responsible for not provoking armageddon over an insignificant little country, 8,000 miles from home?

[/QUOTE]
I already answered it. LBJ is the worst, but Kennedy and Nixon should have done the same thing when they found out the North was behind the war, and became President. Aside from the humanitarian consequences of failure or withdrawal, there's also the political consequences to avoid; those being all our allies observing that America's security promises are worthless.

 

[gagenater]

So because it wasn't a world war or korea; there's no way for anyone to figure out how to stop the enemy from moving men and supplies into the south, or to figure out how and why to invade the north, or figure out what China would do and how we could prepare for that? That's completely disingenuous.

It was easy to figure out how to stop men and supplies from being moved into Vietnam and south Vietnam. What was hard was finding a reason why doing those things was worthwhile. After a lot of wasted time and effort ultimately it was decided that there was no reason good enough for doing it and the US unilaterally stopped fighting in the war - which by the way started before the US got into it and continued afterwards.

Just because you are in a war doesn't mean that it will always and forever be worth winning. In the case of Vietnam the US stood to gain very little from 'winning' and ultimately it wasn't worth having a win given the level of effort it would have required to get one.

 

[Dinglehoff]

It was easy to figure out how to stop men and supplies from being moved into Vietnam and south Vietnam. What was hard was finding a reason why doing those things was worthwhile. After a lot of wasted time and effort ultimately it was decided that there was no reason good enough for doing it and the US unilaterally stopped fighting in the war - which by the way started before the US got into it and continued afterwards.

Just because you are in a war doesn't mean that it will always and forever be worth winning. In the case of Vietnam the US stood to gain very little from 'winning' and ultimately it wasn't worth having a win given the level of effort it would have required to get one.

You seriously can't think of a "worthwhile" reason to stop the enemy and their supplies from getting into South Vietnam? Well our people did at the time. The problem is that leadership chose to try it with the most ineffective strategy possible (the bombing), and also chose not to recognize and correct their failures.

 

[gagenater]

You seriously can't think of a "worthwhile" reason to stop the enemy and their supplies from getting into South Vietnam? Well our people did at the time. The problem is that leadership chose to try it with the most ineffective strategy possible (the bombing), and also chose not to recognize and correct their failures.

For something to be worthwhile it has to be:

worth·while
ˌwərTHˈ(h)wīl/
adjective

1. worth the time, money, or effort spent; of value or importance

Cost effective: - you cannot spend more in lives or equipment than the objective is worth - a ground invasion of Laos and Cambodia fails this test

Able to achieve the objectives: A ground invasion of Cambodia and Laos fails to achieve this objective, since considerable material came into North Vietnam directly from Southwestern China

Unlikely to create a scenario where the war is lost in some other way: Based on the information available to decision makers at the time, a ground invasion of Cambodia and Laos was likely to trigger a soviet invasion of western Europe - that would definately have counted as losing the war as opposed to merely ending it.

Bombing and small commando raids were the only realistic things which could be done which were cost effective, and unlikely to widen the war to include opponents and battlefields where the US was unable to achieve a victory ( like western europe or a nuclear war). Unfortunately they were also unable to achieve the objectives. The USAF thought they could achieve the objectives, but were proven wrong once the strategy was implemented. At this point the US cut their losses and ended the war.

Short answer - there was no worthwhile reason to stop the NVA from bringing supplies to South Vietnam only unworthy reasons. The time, money and effort that was spent in the already failed attempts was already disproportionate to the value or importance of the objective that would be achieved. Renewed effort or greater effort was going to be even less worthwhile, and thankfully after many fruitless years the political leadership of the US stopped trying.

 

[Dinglehoff]

Cost effective: - you cannot spend more in lives or equipment than the objective is worth - a ground invasion of Laos and Cambodia fails this test

In your opinion, which you are basing on nothing but fear.

Able to achieve the objectives: A ground invasion of Cambodia and Laos fails to achieve this objective, since considerable material came into North Vietnam directly from Southwestern China

Since that comment was about stopping weapons from getting into South Vietnam, your response fails to address how shipping weapons to North Vietnam gets them into South Vietnam. To get from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, they have to go across the North-South border, or back into and down around through Cambodia and Laos.

Unlikely to create a scenario where the war is lost in some other way: Based on the information available to decision makers at the time, a ground invasion of Cambodia and Laos was likely to trigger a soviet invasion of western Europe - that would definately have counted as losing the war as opposed to merely ending it.

Bombing and small commando raids were the only realistic things which could be done which were cost effective, and unlikely to widen the war to include opponents and battlefields where the US was unable to achieve a victory ( like western europe or a nuclear war).

You don't know if they would have invaded Western Europe or launched a first strike. You don't think South Vietnam is worth the risk, they might also reach the same conclusion. The communists were escalating the conflict from the start. It's then incumbent upon them to de-escalate when we respond, if they want peace and stability.

Unfortunately they were also unable to achieve the objectives. The USAF thought they could achieve the objectives, but were proven wrong once the strategy was implemented. At this point the US cut their losses and ended the war.

They thought wrong, and it didn't take the whole war to figure it out. How long does it take to figure out that bombing roads and dirt trails won't stop foot traffic?

Short answer - there was no worthwhile reason to stop the NVA from bringing supplies to South Vietnam only unworthy reasons. The time, money and effort that was spent in the already failed attempts was already disproportionate to the value or importance of the objective that would be achieved. Renewed effort or greater effort was going to be even less worthwhile, and thankfully after many fruitless years the political leadership of the US stopped trying.

The short answer is that you are wrong; because the safety and stability of the South was the only thing we were even involved for, and locking out communist bloc supplies and men over land would make the country much more politically and physically secure. Faking a bad math argument doesn't change that.

 

[stevieji]

In your opinion, which you are basing on nothing but fear.


Since that comment was about stopping weapons from getting into South Vietnam, your response fails to address how shipping weapons to North Vietnam gets them into South Vietnam. To get from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, they have to go across the North-South border, or back into and down around through Cambodia and Laos.


You don't know if they would have invaded Western Europe or launched a first strike. You don't think South Vietnam is worth the risk, they might also reach the same conclusion. The communists were escalating the conflict from the start. It's then incumbent upon them to de-escalate when we respond, if they want peace and stability.


They thought wrong, and it didn't take the whole war to figure it out. How long does it take to figure out that bombing roads and dirt trails won't stop foot traffic?


The short answer is that you are wrong; because the safety and stability of the South was the only thing we were even involved for, and locking out communist bloc supplies and men over land would make the country much more politically and physically secure. Faking a bad math argument doesn't change that.

Your arguments are less and less convincing. You have a fixed idea (an imaginary American victory) and are unwilling to accept any argument which conflicts with your objective - an objective which was comprehensively defeated more than forty years ago. Nothing you can say will change this fact - and nothing you have suggested would have changed the historical reality in this perfect world of yours where the US military is invincible.
Ho Chi Minh was a great man. He defeated an immeasurably superior foe, militarily, and brought self-determination to his people after more than a century of colonial exploitation. You might even compare him to George Washington.
What the Americans never understood was that the Vietnamese would have fought for another century to achieve their independence. Realistically, you should admire their resilience, rather than regretting your own country's impotence.
Enough now.

 

[Dinglehoff]

Your arguments are less and less convincing. You have a fixed idea (an imaginary American victory) and are unwilling to accept any argument which conflicts with your objective - an objective which was comprehensively defeated more than forty years ago. Nothing you can say will change this fact - and nothing you have suggested would have changed the historical reality in this perfect world of yours where the US military is invincible.
Ho Chi Minh was a great man. He defeated an immeasurably superior foe, militarily, and brought self-determination to his people after more than a century of colonial exploitation. You might even compare him to George Washington.
What the Americans never understood was that the Vietnamese would have fought for another century to achieve their independence. Realistically, you should admire their resilience, rather than regretting your own country's impotence.
Enough now.

You failed to address my arguments, probably because you can't construct a rational response. Instead you chose to praise Ho Chi Minh, who was human garbage, and misrepresent the motives of "his people", while wallowing in anti-American hypocrisy.

I accept your concession.

 

[stevieji]

You failed to address my arguments, probably because you can't construct a rational response. Instead you chose to praise Ho Chi Minh, who was human garbage, and misrepresent the motives of "his people", while wallowing in anti-American hypocrisy.

I accept your concession.

Ho ho ho!
One of the greatest men of the 20th Century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

 

[Dinglehoff]

Ho ho ho!
One of the greatest men of the 20th Century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

He's a bush league stalinist who ranks just behind Mao, Stalin, and Hitler.

 

[Herbert West]

You failed to address my arguments, probably because you can't construct a rational response. Instead you chose to praise Ho Chi Minh, who was human garbage, and misrepresent the motives of "his people", while wallowing in anti-American hypocrisy.
I accept your concession.

Human garbage? Now that is something that you have to qualify, and with something other than "we was against us (after we first supported him against the Japanese then sold him to the french)".

As I have re-iterated a billion times, the Vieth Min had been fighting the foreign occupier since 1941. What on Earth makes you think that the US would have been the one to beat them? The French, who had actual connections, knowledge of the area, and knowledge of COIN, did not. What chance did the US, which got suckered into the conflict, and then got its well-deserved lesson in counter-insurgency, have compared to that?

 

[gagenater]

In your opinion, which you are basing on nothing but fear.

not fear - common sense. If the government of the united states refused to spend more effort than south vietnam was worth in saving it, that's not fear - thats rational.

Since that comment was about stopping weapons from getting into South Vietnam, your response fails to address how shipping weapons to North Vietnam gets them into South Vietnam. To get from North Vietnam to South Vietnam, they have to go across the North-South border, or back into and down around through Cambodia and Laos.

The US didn't have a plan that could achieve any of these things. keeping weapons out of south vietnam was only 1/2 the battle - the battle to keep the viet cong from being supplied. The other half of the battle was to keep the NVA from getting supplied. you have to stop both simultaniously in order to prevent the enemies of the government of south vietnam from winnning.

You don't know if they would have invaded Western Europe or launched a first strike. You don't think South Vietnam is worth the risk, they might also reach the same conclusion. The communists were escalating the conflict from the start. It's then incumbent upon them to de-escalate when we respond, if they want peace and stability.

That's the point - I don't know, and neither did anyone else. It's not 'incumbent' on the communists to do anything in particular just because it would be convenient to your arguement.

They thought wrong, and it didn't take the whole war to figure it out. How long does it take to figure out that bombing roads and dirt trails won't stop foot traffic?

You are right - it didn't take the whole war to figure it out - only about 3 years of bombing.

The short answer is that you are wrong; because the safety and stability of the South was the only thing we were even involved for, and locking out communist bloc supplies and men over land would make the country much more politically and physically secure. Faking a bad math argument doesn't change that.

Here you make my point for me. the safety and stability of the South was the only thing we were even involved for - that's the benefit of winning a war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. All the effort which you think is justified has to be weighed against that sole benefit, and you are making it clear that the benefit wasn't worth the cost. That's not bad math - that's good math and sound logic. Bad math is insisting that any level of effort is worth the safety and stability of South Vietnam - an objective which was highly limited in time, space, and number of people.

 

[Dinglehoff]

[not fear - common sense. If the government of the united states refused to spend more effort than south vietnam was worth in saving it, that's not fear - thats rational.

Fear of Soviet retaliation.

The US didn't have a plan that could achieve any of these things. keeping weapons out of south vietnam was only 1/2 the battle - the battle to keep the viet cong from being supplied. The other half of the battle was to keep the NVA from getting supplied. you have to stop both simultaniously in order to prevent the enemies of the government of south vietnam from winnning.

You have to keep the men and weapons out of the South if you want stability and safety in the south. We declined to even do that.

That's the point - I don't know, and neither did anyone else. It's not 'incumbent' on the communists to do anything in particular just because it would be convenient to your arguement.

Convenience is the bar you've set for us here. You don't know what they'd do and the argument to back down applies to them just as well as it would to us; yet you've been conveniently arguing that WW 3 kicking off was going to happen if we escalate, and it's our problem to solve even in the face of naked communist aggression. Wrong. The fact is there wouldn't have been a war there if the North hadn't been trying to conquer the South, that's why they have to back down if they want peace. If they won't, we have to make them.

You are right - it didn't take the whole war to figure it out - only about 3 years of bombing.

3 years of negligence and incompetence.

Here you make my point for me. the safety and stability of the South was the only thing we were even involved for - that's the benefit of winning a war in Vietnam in the 60's and 70's. All the effort which you think is justified has to be weighed against that sole benefit, and you are making it clear that the benefit wasn't worth the cost. That's not bad math - that's good math and sound logic. Bad math is insisting that any level of effort is worth the safety and stability of South Vietnam - an objective which was highly limited in time, space, and number of people.

No, I'm making it clear the cost was worth the benefit. A shorter, more successful, and more aggressive war would benefit the Vietnamese and us a lot more than the historical war, probably more than letting the North have them from the start too.

Human garbage? Now that is something that you have to qualify, and with something other than "we was against us (after we first supported him against the Japanese then sold him to the french)".

As I have re-iterated a billion times, the Vieth Min had been fighting the foreign occupier since 1941. What on Earth makes you think that the US would have been the one to beat them? The French, who had actual connections, knowledge of the area, and knowledge of COIN, did not. What chance did the US, which got suckered into the conflict, and then got its well-deserved lesson in counter-insurgency, have compared to that?

The South Vietnamese government was neither foreign nor an occupation. You also need to check your baseless assumptions about the French, US, and Viet Minh against reality. The US had lots of access to locals, geographical information, and a long military history to learn from; so the tools for victory were there. Then you should look up some of the terrible things Ho Chi Minh is responsible for. Do you think he's one of the greatest men of the 20th century?

 

[paggy lipton]

What about Obama? He was good, wasn't he?

 

[Yakman]

Fear of Soviet retaliation.

 

[Dinglehoff]

picture

Is that a real card from a game? Where from?

 

[Yakman]

Is that a real card from a game? Where from?

the greatest collectible card game of all time. ILLUMINATI: THE NEW WORLD ORDER by Steve Jackson Games.