pWas the Vietnam War winnable for the U.S.?

Next>

Results

52 %

No, it was always futile

31 %

Yes, with more troops

17 %

I have mixed feelings about it

@Mar '13 c 141 comments V 279 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

279 Votes

u

19 min
Brogan voted

v No, it was always futile
56 min
PaulUK2901 endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
u

23 hr
Mallard voted

v I have mixed feelings about it
Sat

whatheheck

v Yes, with more troops

Yes, if they had kept the asshat politicians out of it.

Post
u

Sat
sml11 endorsed justapirate

v I have mixed feelings about it
u

Fri
DrSilicon voted

v No, it was always futile
Fri

Zach

v I have mixed feelings about it

The problem was that the Vietnam War was a body count war. The only way we could have "won" was by killing all of the Vietnamese. This is theoretically possible, but just plain evil.

Post
u

Fri
Hireman endorsed FollowTheMoney

v Yes, with more troops
u

May 16
RobG endorsed FollowTheMoney

v Yes, with more troops
May 16
StanH voted

v Yes, with more troops
May 16
littlewolf8469 voted

v No, it was always futile
May 15
Bob72370 voted

v Yes, with more troops
May 15
silentrunning endorsed Sabio

v Yes, with more troops
May 15

cat2009

v Yes, with more troops

Not so much with troops but leaving the politics out

Post
u

May 15
o_oo_e endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
u

May 15
bendrewhunt endorsed Fishbone345

v I have mixed feelings about it
May 15

jessejaymes

v I have mixed feelings about it

I chose mixed feeling because more troops would not have won that war. Still, we could have won the war if we had of allowed the troops we did have to fight the same kind of war that the VC and NVA fought. But we don't. We fight wars for the profits of the Military Industrial complex. We fight "gentlemen wars" that nobody follows the Geneva Convention except for us. Now I'm not suggesting we should be barbarians. But if a war is truly important enough to fight (and Vietnam and Iraq were NOT) then we should fight to win. Not just fight a holding action that drags out a decade so Halliburton or whoever can make tons of money over our kids dead bodies.

Post
u

May 15

CaryNickel

v Yes, with more troops

Of course it was winnable. We just needed leadership with the backbone to actually get the job done. The U.S. was one of only two superpowers on the planet back then, and we had the arms to decimate the entire world if we had wanted to. We could have re-booted the entire nation of Vietnam with a whole new group of people from somewhere else if the military had been allowed to do what they do best: Kill people and break stuff.

Post
May 15
MarkColwell endorsed Dan_Tien

v I have mixed feelings about it
May 14
Mournwolf voted

v Yes, with more troops
u

May 14

MensaMan

v No, it was always futile

I served actively in the military during the Vietnam era (1964-66); and our involvement had NOTHING to do with communism! We were in Vietnam because of the huge amount of oil under the South China sea. The whole thing was a result of the oil companies meddling in our best interests. American BIG BUSINESS is the most negative element in American society.

Post
May 12
rangerjeff voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 12
SlimElmo91 endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
May 12
warwil630 voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 12
Fyi1957 endorsed 4PeteSake

v No, it was always futile
u

May 12
farmer_bruce endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
u

May 12
SESCOMM voted

v No, it was always futile
May 11

MnMking2797

v No, it was always futile

We had more than 500,000 troops in Vietnam. More troops would not have helped.

Post
May 10
jeffreyknee voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 10
Big_jeff voted

v Yes, with more troops
u

May 10
Leonard endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
May 9

TerryConklin

v No, it was always futile

It like most of our "Wars" was not a war. Our real wars (declared by Congress) are and have always been winnable. See WWI, WWII.

Post
u

May 9
LilliB voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 9
Bill voted

v Yes, with more troops
May 9
esl99 voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 9
ccchhhrrriiiss endorsed Kellso

v Yes, with more troops
May 8
LHoran voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 8
captbigtime endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
u

May 8
DemonsAngel13 endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
May 7
RevJdubs316 endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
May 7
oldtimer2 endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
May 7
looncraz endorsed FollowTheMoney

v Yes, with more troops
u

May 6
gitrdone8383 voted

v No, it was always futile
u

May 6
nickhotrod voted

v Yes, with more troops
May 6
Prime_Meridian endorsed Politic-n

v No, it was always futile
May 6
Safetyguy63 voted

v No, it was always futile
May 5
FFS- voted

v No, it was always futile
May 5
mudpike voted

v I have mixed feelings about it
May 5
LEC endorsed Zazziness

v No, it was always futile
May 5

TheHandsomeOne

v I have mixed feelings about it

Politix, your surveys are insulting to anyone with half a brain. It was winnable with far fewer troops in the very same way Japan was forced into submission and WWI was brought to an end. As it was, it only served to enrich politicians and those poised to capitalize on their positions of influence, and not at the cost of the lives of their own sons and daughters. Getting around genocide is very easy to do, draw the line and implicitly state the intentions of this no-longer sovereign nation to deploy mass destruction. Follow through if no compliance. If the UN doesn't like it, draw the line for any opposed as well. If this nation cannot do this, it has no cause of act...

B1

Post

Sat

whatheheck

v Yes, with more troops

Yes, if they had kept the asshat politicians out of it.

Post
Fri

Zach

v I have mixed feelings about it

The problem was that the Vietnam War was a body count war. The only way we could have "won" was by killing all of the Vietnamese. This is theoretically possible, but just plain evil.

Post
May 15

cat2009

v Yes, with more troops

Not so much with troops but leaving the politics out

Post
May 15

jessejaymes

v I have mixed feelings about it

I chose mixed feeling because more troops would not have won that war. Still, we could have won the war if we had of allowed the troops we did have to fight the same kind of war that the VC and NVA fought. But we don't. We fight wars for the profits of the Military Industrial complex. We fight "gentlemen wars" that nobody follows the Geneva Convention except for us. Now I'm not suggesting we should be barbarians. But if a war is truly important enough to fight (and Vietnam and Iraq were NOT) then we should fight to win. Not just fight a holding action that drags out a decade so Halliburton or whoever can make tons of money over our kids dead bodies.

Post
u

May 15

CaryNickel

v Yes, with more troops

Of course it was winnable. We just needed leadership with the backbone to actually get the job done. The U.S. was one of only two superpowers on the planet back then, and we had the arms to decimate the entire world if we had wanted to. We could have re-booted the entire nation of Vietnam with a whole new group of people from somewhere else if the military had been allowed to do what they do best: Kill people and break stuff.

Post
u

May 14

MensaMan

v No, it was always futile

I served actively in the military during the Vietnam era (1964-66); and our involvement had NOTHING to do with communism! We were in Vietnam because of the huge amount of oil under the South China sea. The whole thing was a result of the oil companies meddling in our best interests. American BIG BUSINESS is the most negative element in American society.

Post
May 11

MnMking2797

v No, it was always futile

We had more than 500,000 troops in Vietnam. More troops would not have helped.

Post
May 9

TerryConklin

v No, it was always futile

It like most of our "Wars" was not a war. Our real wars (declared by Congress) are and have always been winnable. See WWI, WWII.

Post
May 5

TheHandsomeOne

v I have mixed feelings about it

Politix, your surveys are insulting to anyone with half a brain. It was winnable with far fewer troops in the very same way Japan was forced into submission and WWI was brought to an end. As it was, it only served to enrich politicians and those poised to capitalize on their positions of influence, and not at the cost of the lives of their own sons and daughters. Getting around genocide is very easy to do, draw the line and implicitly state the intentions of this no-longer sovereign nation to deploy mass destruction. Follow through if no compliance. If the UN doesn't like it, draw the line for any opposed as well. If this nation cannot do this, it has no cause of act...

B1

Post
May 3

Bleeding_Blue

v No, it was always futile

Post
May 1

B_Girl_Turco

v No, it was always futile

Never

Post
May 1

PNWest

v No, it was always futile

What a horrible waste of lives and money. We should have never been there. Amazingly we haven't learned the simple lesson that we should not get involved in wars where we are not threatened.

Post
Apr 30

NoAmnestyEVER

v Yes, with more troops

It was ABSOLUTELY winnable, if not for liberals spitting on troops, sending Jane Fonda to sit on North Vietnamese tanks and throwing war medals over the White House fence. The morale of the troops went down to zero thanks to leftist Commie loving hippies.

Post
u

Apr 30

Thomas_Paine

v No, it was always futile

I was in Vietnam from 69-71 with the Army. From my experience we typically beat NVA forces in virtually any military encounter, but there was a price for this in lives in a war that spanned over a decade of American involvement. The number that seems correct is 58,282 KIA. That's not only a lot of young men sacrificing their lives for a goal that never seemed to be understood as vital to the interest of the American people; it's also a lot of suffering and grief for the families that would suffer generations as well. I will always be remember the men that I served with. It was an ugly experience that none of us will ever forget. I really felt after Vietnam that my na...

Post
u

Apr 29

Angry_man

v No, it was always futile

As with every war we've been in since. When you put politicians in charge and don't let the military do what it's supposed to do you'll never win. You go In there and KILL!!! Everybody with a gun, women, children what ever. Collateral damage. And then you don't apologize and rebuild the damn country. You seize it. And make it part of America. Unless its North Korea because nobody wants a glass country.

Post
Apr 25

Aftermath

v No, it was always futile

We could not win because the government would not let us win.

Post
u

Apr 25

Kentuckyvote

v Yes, with more troops

America had no clear goal for the war. Also the televised nightly reports were terrible for war support. If we had Laos and Cambodia helping us it would have been a different story.

Post
u

Mar '13

cpier14

v Yes, with more troops

Please read "FOLLOWTHEMONEY"S post

Post
u

Mar '13

Randolph61

v I have mixed feelings about it

Post
u

Mar '13

CharlieFeather

v Yes, with more troops

Yes, if the US was willing to go to war with China and the Soviet Union.

Post
R Load more comments...

Mar '13

Politic-n

v No, it was always futile

Just like Afghanistan, it is always futile for an occupying force to fight an entrenched force in their own territory. A military army, no matter how big or powerful, can never beat a determined guerilla force defending their homeland. That is a rule to warfare, and is applicable to most all wars.

B5

r2 replies

e26 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

justapirate

v I have mixed feelings about it

Didn't want that choice. The correct choice is we could have won it if we'd been allowed to fight it. Our own politicians and bureaucrats tied our hands to an almost unbelievably stupid point.

B3

r7 replies

e10 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

Zazziness

v No, it was always futile

If we had literally wiped the opposing side from the face of the Earth by using weapons of mass destruction, we would have immorally slaughtered millions of noncombatants, left the land irradiated beyond use, and probably would have begun a massive war with China. So I'd have to say that can't be counted as a "win." It was always futile.

B1

r6 replies

e10 endorsed

Post
u

Mar '13

Kellso

v Yes, with more troops

ANY war is winable! A war or conflict should be entered with ONE purpose. To cause our foe to totally surrender or to wipe them off the face of the earth if they dont surrender completely. NEVER NEVER NEVER go into a conflict to 'POLICE' the situation.

B3

r5 replies

e7 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

FollowTheMoney

v Yes, with more troops

Yes, but I'm not sure more troops were the answer. The spineless politicians killed our men and lost the war.

B1

e8 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

AntiPorcheria

v Yes, with more troops

ANOTHER OPTION: YES, IF WE HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO BY WASHINGTON! We lost the war because of America's foreign policy. It was to stop the spread of Communism, not do be rid of it. We would have been able to destroy Communism in many different times like the Korean War. Lyndon B. Johnson didn't want to be rid of Communism because that would make us sound like an Empire again like with the Philippines in the Spanish American War.

B1

r2 replies

e4 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

Fishbone345

v I have mixed feelings about it

Any war where you are fighting an ideology, will be extremely hard to gain victory at the very least and likely insurmountable. Deaths won't soften reserve, they will harden it.

B3

e1 endorsed

Post
u

Mar '13

4PeteSake

v No, it was always futile

Whenever some politician claims the Vietnam War was winnable....they are getting ready to start a new Vietnam War!

B3

e1 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

Neo_NtheMatrix

v Yes, with more troops

Too many people are too quick to give up on America. So many wars could have been won that would have prevented future wars and in the end saved lives. America is still strong and still great, even if there are those that have written her obituary. God bless America!

B1

r1 reply

e3 endorsed

Post
Mar '13

miketost

v I have mixed feelings about it

Vietnam was a war America did not want to win for whatever reason.The limitations on our forces would not allow victory.Those that served should have the highest respect for their sacrifice.The fools that dictated that war should be damned.

B1

e2 endorsed

Post

Politix

pWas the Vietnam War winnable for the U.S.?

Results