Turning Opinion into Science Fact

“Uncle Walter Cronkite misled the, American public about the nature and the results of the famous Tet Offensive as an American defeat , when it was a NVA disaster .”

Yes, he did. I don’t know that it was deliberate lying on his part or not, but he did misrepesent the event.

This wasn’t the cause of the U.S. losing the Vietnam war. The fact is the U.S. went on from the Tet Offensive and continued defeating the North Vietnamese and the terrorist Viet Cong to the point that they signed a peace treaty to end the war about four years later. LBJ and Walter Cronkite were afterthoughts by then.

Yes, the U.S. military got the situation in South Vietnam under control and then the Democrats gained power in the early 1970’s, and they ended up throwing South Vietnam to the wolves by refusing to support them after North Vietnam violated the Paris Peace Agreement and again invaded South Vietnam.

The United States was morally and legally obliged to come to South Vietnam’s aid, but the cowardly Democrats ran away and left the South Vietnamese in the lurch. As a result millions of innocent South Vietnamese were k!lled/displaced.

The cowardly Democrats have done the same thing in Iraq and are now getting ready to throw everything gained in Afghanistan away.

Democrats are fools. They are not fit to defend the United States because they won’t do it.

Taking out a brutal dictator in Iraq was not a mistake, the mistake was the Brits & American forces being told NOT to pursue the Iraq forces across the border at the end of the first Gulf War! I & a work colleague on hearing that news looked up from our desks toward each other, both with rye smiles on our faces, Graham said to me,” You know what don’t you?”, I replied “Yep, if we don’t carry on down that highway straight in to downtown Bagdad & take Hussain out, we’ll be back here in 10 years having to do it all over again!”. I think history has proven the pair of us right, along with the resulting additional loss of life & brutal injuries all round!!! As to Afghanistan, any people who want to exterminate another people based on religion because they don’t like the other people, was not wrong. If you don’t stop a bully in his tracks to start with, you just build up trouble in the long run!!!! Islam seeks a global caliphate, just as Socialism seeks a global world run by Socialism!!!! They make great bedfellows i.m.h.o! Moderator feel free to edit!

“Taking out a brutal dictator in Iraq was not a mistake, the mistake was the Brits & American forces being told NOT to pursue the Iraq forces across the border at the end of the first Gulf War!”

I agree with that, too! Bush 41 should have taken Saddam out at that time. So we had to go in and do it all over again.

I thought Bush 43 should have used the second attack on Saddam to also oust the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Bush had hundreds of thousands of American troops surrounding Iran in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush could have used this to put pressure on the Mad Mullahs, who were not nearly as entrenched then, as they are now.

Imo, there was a very good chance for Bush to spark a revolution in Iran at that time without even invading. Just the theat of an American invasion, along with public support for the Iranian oppostion from Bush could have sparked an uprising. It was worth a try, but Bush passed. So now we have a potentially nuclear-armed Mad Mullahs to deal with. Passing on corralling dictators is not a good idea. Dictators don’t improve with time.

The Vietnamese people are good people and they love Americans and America.

Even the North Vietnamese show respect to American tourists who visit them, especially if they learn you are a veteran of the Vietnam war. They treat you like kings in the South, and they treat you decently in the North.

The Vietnamese know the Americans were there to help them and were not there to own them or conquer them. Even the North Vietnamese know this. A lot of America’s sons and daughters d!ed trying to keep them free.

Happily, the North Vietnamese communists were not as bloodthirsty after the war as was feared, although they did make millions suffer, but things seem to have settled down and Vietnam seems to be doing pretty good, although they are not free like we are in the United States. I guess living under authoritarian rule is better than under a bloodthirsy dictatorship.

If the U.S. had left troops in South Vietnam, then it would still be South Vietnam. But the Democrats made us cut and run.

A lot of mayhem caused by stupidity and cowardice.

I don’t agree. Five U.S. presidents thought it was important to save South Vietnam from a communist takeover.

The thing about allowing dictators to run wild is if you do that, then where are they going to stop? The communists, not just the North Vietnamese had their eyes on overrunning all of Southest Asia, not just South Vietam, up to and including overthrowing India.

You want the West to sit back and watch all that happen? How would that benefit the West?

Saddam Insane needed to be deposed. Saddam himself was putting out disinformation claiming he had WMD. Even most of Saddam’s generals believed Saddam had WMD. So why wouldn’t the U.S. believe it? Every intelligence agency on Earth agreed that Saddam had WMD.

The actual war in Iraq went very well, and Iraq was finally in good shape at the end of Bush’s term. Then Obama-Biden came into power and took Iran’s side in everything including allowing them to undermine the Iraqi government. And then Obama-Biden decided to pull out American troops prematurely, which led to the rise of the Islamic Terror Army who proceeded to displace and k!ll millions of innocent people during their rampage across the Middle East.

Trump had to come in and focus on the problem and eliminate it, using the same U.S. military that Obama-Biden refused to use. Obama-Biden sat idle while millions of people suffered. It didn’t have to happen.

Staying in Afghanistan is what the U.S. should be doing. The U.S. is still in Germany, and in Japan and in South Korea and in a lot of other nations, and they are there for the most part for very good reasons.

Pulling out of Afghanistan now will only benefit the enemies of the United States. The Afghans are the ones doing the fighting. The U.S. hasn’t lost a troop in over a year. The U.S. has a nice big airbase in Afghanistan from which bad guys in the area can be targetted. It’s not a good idea to give this up.

When the U.S. moves out, the Chicoms and Russians will be moving in.

Some people, including most Democrats can’t see the Big Picture.

Dictators see the Big Picture.

Yes, the Democrats crippled the South Vietnamese by cutting the money they needed to defend themselves.

I remember one story where the South Vietnamese were so short of fuel that they would fill one ambulance up with gasoline and then chain one or two other ambulances behind the first, that were out of gas, and drag them to the battlefield to pick up casualties.

That’s the kind of support you get from cowardly Democrats.

I dont think i would describe it as LBJ’s political distraction war, LBJ did NOT start it , his administration mishandled it by micro managing and limiting its scope, played right into the hands of the North Vietnamese, the only people who could stop the war were the North Vietnamese LBJ gave them NO reason to want to do so.
LBJ’s failure was NOT to act decisively at home to stop socialist propaganda efforts against the war, and to NOT allow his generals full scope to employ both tactics and strategy against the prime enemy the NVA, (which heavily outnumbered the south, indeed in terms of infantry the U.S troops provided PARITY roughly with NVA battalions and VC battalions.
Australians did much better in their efforts to control Phuoc Thuy province because they had an effective and cohesive long term strategy, the U.S (because of the limitations imposed on the U.S command) focused on attrition, a strategy that favored their enemy and disadvantaged them.

LBJ didn’t want to be fighting the Vietnam war anyway. Cronkite was just the last straw for him.

Although, Cronkite’s opinion did not change the course of the war. It just gave the anti-war Left more ammunition to use. If Cronkite comes out against the war, then everyone should be against it, they would say.

Too much has been made of Cronkite’s opinion of the Vietnam war.

Meanwhile, Dan Rather, CBS correspondent, is over in Vietnam telling lie after lie about the war. Along with a cadre of other anti-war, leftwing reporters. It’s no wonder Cronkite was discouraged after listening to these liars.

The lying leftwing News Media is the reason I went to South Vietnam.

I was in the Army and after basic and advanced training, I was assigned to Germany, which surprised me since I figured I was headed directly to Vietnam. About 75 percent of the class went there right out of boot camp. I would have eventually been reassigned to Vietnam anyway.

So I sat there in Germany and read the newspapers. And just about every story had the theme that the North Vietnamese were the “toughest soldiers in the world” and that they were kicking the hell out of U.S. troops and the U.S. was just barely hanging on by a fingernail in South Vietnam.

Well, this didn’t fit in with my worldview. I could not imagine that the U.S. was being defeated on the battlefield in South Vietnam. If this were true, then it meant that my whole worldview was wrong, and I had to know one way or another, so I went down and volunteered to go to Vietnam so I could see for myself.

And of course, when I got there it was nothing like it was described by the leftwing reporters. The North Vietnamese were on the run, and the terrorist Viet Cong had been wiped out right before I got there during the Tet Offensive of 1968.

Anyway, I found out my worldview was right on the money. 🙂

Walter Cronkite should have probably taken that trip with me. He might have looked at things a little differently then.