Maduro is not a huge fan of Fortunate Son apparently.
Vietnam was for chumps we can get TWO simultaneous Vietnams goin at the same time!
Trump should promise not to do another Vietnam as long as Maduro promises not to repeat the Holodomor
Oh jeez please don't tempt him Maduro
You know he'll do it if you tell him not to
Vietnam? More like another Operation Just Cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJBXONGPy5U&ab_channel=realmilitaryflix
While circumstances may be different, I don't think they'll hold up against a combined US invasion. Plus I don't think there'll be alot of resistance against the US
https://twitter.com/GDarkconrad/status/1090695806120849414
bitch, pls.
We already at advisor level.
Dudes no Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh tells France to fuck off by reading them excerpts from the American declaration of independence like nobody's bitch.
yeah dont invade
We'll let you Aussie blokes lead the way.
Columbia and Guatamala would be better examples given the context.
I wonder how the vietnamese feel knowing that on an international level their country is simply a metaphor for endless war
Or how they feel about their country being a metaphor for "don't get started, you can't win".
Probably the same way we feel about the Revolution. It's a simple case of, "Don't pick a fight with a bunch of pissed off people, in their own backyard"
"I can be an ARMY COMMANDER?! TRUMP-BRAND ARMY?! IT'LL BE AS GOOD AS THE STEAKS!"
Make way for General Bone-Spurs.
I'm not an expert but a war between those two would end in a bloody misery
I mean, North Vietnam and the Vietcong failed militarily on almost all accounts against U.S. forces. The most famous action, the Tet Offensive, was a collosal disaster for the Vietcong. Where the issue came up was morale. The U.S. populace just had no desire to fight a war in a country many of them had never heard of and didn't care about at all. They wanted to do better things that crawl around in Asia and spend the early years of their adulthood getting shot at. The U.S. just decided they were done and left and the South Vietnam government was such a shitshow that they never mustered a proper defense and North Vietnam was able to just walk in on them.
Venezuela is not Vietnam, and Maduro's regime isn't even as good as North Vietnam's or the Vietcong. We don't need a war, but you're nothing Maduro.
yyyeah when the majority of your population is against the president there's no way this will turn out anything like Vietnam
So long as the US doesn't burning down entire villages in Venezuela it'll stay that way too...
I have a feeling Maduro is more likely to do that this time.
Vie2nam. Or VieIInam on the posters.
Look I don't like Trump, and all that, but I don't think you want this. I really don't think it'd play out the same way.
That's lovely to hear, though there are far better arguments that could be made on the matter that go in to more depth and cover more issues that led to the U.S. withdrawal and the downfall of South Vietnam. For instance the Tet Offensive was a crushing military and political defeat in Vietnam. It was a defeat that they never recovered from, but it hurt here in the states because up until then the American populace was being told everything was going great and the Vietcong were basically nothing. So having this sudden surge of 100,000 Vietcong attacking almost all at once all over South Vietnam was a direct and obvious contradiction to that. This seriously fucked up morale and support at home. And another big part was television, with nightly news broadcasting images of the war closer and more uncensored than ever before straight in to people's living rooms. So people who have just had or are having dinner get to see clips of jungles being firebombed, wounded soldiers, dead Vietcong and NVA. For the first time all the horrific shit in war wasn't a world away and easy to ignore, it was in every home. Hard to romanticize that and make people support it.
we lost vietnam because we ignored every piece of negative news from the ground and never had the trust of the south vietnamese. Like we were so far up our own ass about communism that we didn't understand why the farmers forced off their land at gunpoint were allowing the north vietnamese to infiltrate them.
Most of the populous honestly didn't care either way they just wanted it to end. The Vietcong figured that when they launched the Tet Offensive it would inspire a broader uprising among the populace that would drive home their plan. Instead, most people just wanted nothing to do with them and it caused a big shake up in the Vietcong leadership in the aftermath.
To add to this, the Pentagon Papers show that the US was considering sending more troops, but didn't because it wouldn't have enough back home to quell the riots, and considered domestic morale to be a matter potentially giving rise to a civil war.
The reason morale back home was dropping was because of how many US troops were dying.
The number of US troops dying was large because the NLF and PAVN were very successful against the US, and paranoia led to like 30% of US casualties being friendly fire incidents, IIRC.
The Tet offensive, according to that one female South Vietnamese general, wasn't enough to destroy the core of the VC or what they stood for.
One inaccuracy in your post I'd point out, what the Pentagon Papers show (considering sending more troops) was BEFORE the Tet Offensive, which means US morale was low long before the offensive, not suddenly morphed as a shock liek you seem to portray it.
Morale was dropping, yes, but the Tet Offensive was a major kick to it that was almost impossible to ignore or overcome. Also U.S. deaths weren't anything exceptionally high, and the U.S. did vastly more damage to the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, but people simply no longer had the stomach for war, especially not one that many simply felt wasn't one we needed to have gotten involved in to begin with, so they were all largely seen as unnecessary and useless deaths. Also the North Vietnamese took over the Vietcong's role because the Tet Offensive devestated their numbers and so they ended up having to fill like 1/4 to 1/3 of the Vietcong force.
Which is largely irrelevant since they still lost the propaganda war with the Vietnamese irrespective of their military or domestic outcomes.
PAVN took over because they were capable of doing so, meaning there was still a sizeable fighting force in there more than capable of fighting the US in nontraditional warfare. Casualties on both sides during the offensive were roughly comparable, and even after the Tet the north was a considerable opponent, mostly due to the PAVN constantly pressuring US and ARVN forces.
The offensive was a both a failure and an unintended victory, as Hue said, but you can't say it destroyed the North's capabilities.
I didn't say it destroyed the North's capabilities. It devastated the Vietcong though and they absolutely did not recover from it. The U.S. military though mopped the floor with the Vietcong and North Vietnamese in virtually every single instance of open combat they ever engaged in.
Factually true but misleading. Open combat, yes, but strategically the VC and PAVN shone in guerilla tactics, as you know. Giap was a military genius and his leadership in Vietnam destroyed US logistics and infrastructure way more than their successes in open warfare ever gained. he was also one of the people most against the Tet Offensive due in large part to how it didn't fit the style of combat they excelled in.
Westmoreland focused on the war of attrition elements and couldn't deal with fighting in jungle conditions, and his command led to record level civilian casualties and fairly small kill-death ratios (eventually counted at two-one for the US iirc? Which doesn't much matter in a war of attrition since the entirety of Vietnam hated the US and wouldn't just lay down and take it with every hamlet they took. Most of the NLF was made up of southern citizenry)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
