The American Revolution? Now how did the US Citizens manage to kick the butts of the

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,006
1,916
113
The United States "won every major battle" of the Vietnam War. "Every single one."

Barack Obama on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 in a speech to the American Legion

Barack Obama says U.S. never lost a major battle in Vietnam

During a speech before the 93rd annual conference of the American Legion on Aug. 30, 2011, President Barack Obama praised the Vietnam War veterans in the audience for their service and achievements.

"You, our Vietnam veterans, did not always receive the respect that you deserved — which was a national shame," Obama said. "But let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war. Every single one."

When we noticed Obama’s claim, we were skeptical. Was it really true that the United States, even as it lost the Vietnam War, actually won every major military battle?

We checked with a variety of historians specializing in the period, and 10 of them responded to our inquiries. Combined, their responses provoked a lively and nuanced debate, which we’ll recap here.

Here are some issues to consider:

What constitutes "winning"? It’s not as easy to answer this question as one might think.

Lance Janda, a professor of history at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said that "our strategy in Vietnam did not revolve around taking and holding terrain. In fact, we often captured and then abandoned key positions over and over again, and measured our progress in the war through a body count."

By that measure, Janda added, "it’s certainly true that we consistently inflicted far greater casualties on the Viet Cong and North Vietnam than we suffered, and if that’s the only gauge one uses to measure ‘victory,’ then we really did win in Vietnam."

On the other hand, he said, "if you argue that the North Vietnamese learned how to fight us in the early major battles of the war and then developed superior tactical and strategic plans for prolonging and ultimately winning the war, then you can plausibly make the case that they were winning a lot of battles from the beginning, regardless of the body count."

What constitutes a "major" battle? There is no official list of "major" battles of the Vietnam War. Some battles could plausibly be classified as either major or minor, or else be classified as one battle within a broader campaign.

Some observers have suggested that the U.S. actually lost more than two dozen battles during Vietnam. But the 10 historians we contacted agreed that most, and possibly all, of the major battles were won by the U.S.

The biggest battles, including Tet and Khe Sanh, "took place in the first half of 1968 and all were clearly American victories," said Edwin E. Moise, a Clemson University historian. But if you expand the universe of battles that qualify as "major," two in particular might be considered U.S. defeats, he said.

One likely loss was the battle at Landing Zone Albany, in November 1965. An American battalion of about 400 men was ambushed by the People’s Army of North Vietnam -- the North Vietnamese army -- and parts of the battalion were overrun, Moise said. The preliminary count of American casualties was 151 killed, 121 wounded and 5 missing.

Since defensive perimeters were established and a majority of U.S. troops did survive the battle, some might not consider it a defeat, but Moise is among those who do. Maj. Steven M. Leonard wrote in the journal Army Logistician that "inevitably, there were those who would draw comparison to" the wipeout of Gen. George A. Custer’s 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn.

The second likely loss was the battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord in mid 1970, which was largely unknown by the public into the mid 1980s.

The United States established Ripcord to help launch attacks in the A Shau and Da Krong valleys, Moise said, but the North Vietnamese army attacked it "so strongly that the American command decided it had better get the U.S. troops out fast if it was to get them out alive. The withdrawal on July 23 was so hasty that the withdrawing troops were not able to take along all their artillery pieces. I would have to call this an American defeat."

Richard H. Kohn, a historian at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), added that the South Vietnamese Army lost battles even with the benefit of U.S. advisers and air power, such as Operation Lam Son 719, the incursion into Laos in 1971 that led to heavy casualties.

Barack Obama says U.S. never lost a major battle in Vietnam | PolitiFact
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The fact that you believe that Washington was a great military genius just shows the type of romanticised, false history that Americans are taught.

The thought that you THINK I believe he is a great military genius just shows you are willing to lie because you are desperate.

Washington wasn't a great military genius. However he knew how to keep the Continental Army together and defeated the British.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,006
1,916
113
And if they were to pay taxes for the Seven Years War and the continued British military presence in BNA, then they should have had
representation in parliament

Why? Most Britons in Britain had to pay even higher taxes than those Britons in the Thirteen Colonies did, and the vast majority of them had no represntatives in parliament. Women and poor people, for example.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
They weren't fighting for freedom. They were fighting because they threw their dummies out of their prams when the British told them to pay for a war that we fought and won for them.

Yeah, it was simply an accident they produced the first modern democracy and a revolutionary Bill of Rights that remains the one to which all others are compared.....

Why? Most Britons in Britain had to pay even higher taxes than those Britons in the Thirteen Colonies did, and the vast majority of them had no represntatives in parliament. Women and poor people, for example.

Yeah...and why should slaves be freed when there are worse cases of slavery elsewhere??

Doesn't make much sense when it is framed thusly, does it??
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,006
1,916
113
However he knew how to keep the Continental Army together and defeated the British.

How many battles did Washington win against our British heroes?

Three, by my reckoning.

How many did he fight? Nine.

So we kicked Washington's butt good and proper two thirds of the time he took us on.

Yeah, it was simply an accident they produced the first modern democracy and a revolutionary Bill of Rights that remains the one to which all others are compared.....

Is America's Bill of Rights older than Britain's?

If not (and it isn't), it was hardly "revolutionary". We did first.

It's a pity you never attended a British school. You would have learnt some real history.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
How many battles did Washington win against our British heroes?

Three, by my reckoning.

How many did he fight? Nine.

So we kicked Washington's butt good and proper two thirds of the time he took us on.

.

Washington wasn't a brilliant military leader... but he whupped the Brits BAD!

Here... Here's another for you...

 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,006
1,916
113
And the "first modern democracy" (Britain is the world's oldest surviving democracy, not America) was so "innovative" it based its Constitution on Britain's Magna Carta.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
The United States "won every major battle" of the Vietnam War. "Every single one."

Barack Obama on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011 in a speech to the American Legion

Barack Obama says U.S. never lost a major battle in Vietnam

During a speech before the 93rd annual conference of the American Legion on Aug. 30, 2011, President Barack Obama praised the Vietnam War veterans in the audience for their service and achievements.

"You, our Vietnam veterans, did not always receive the respect that you deserved — which was a national shame," Obama said. "But let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war. Every single one."

When we noticed Obama’s claim, we were skeptical. Was it really true that the United States, even as it lost the Vietnam War, actually won every major military battle?

We checked with a variety of historians specializing in the period, and 10 of them responded to our inquiries. Combined, their responses provoked a lively and nuanced debate, which we’ll recap here.

Here are some issues to consider:

What constitutes "winning"? It’s not as easy to answer this question as one might think.

Lance Janda, a professor of history at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said that "our strategy in Vietnam did not revolve around taking and holding terrain. In fact, we often captured and then abandoned key positions over and over again, and measured our progress in the war through a body count."

By that measure, Janda added, "it’s certainly true that we consistently inflicted far greater casualties on the Viet Cong and North Vietnam than we suffered, and if that’s the only gauge one uses to measure ‘victory,’ then we really did win in Vietnam."

On the other hand, he said, "if you argue that the North Vietnamese learned how to fight us in the early major battles of the war and then developed superior tactical and strategic plans for prolonging and ultimately winning the war, then you can plausibly make the case that they were winning a lot of battles from the beginning, regardless of the body count."

What constitutes a "major" battle? There is no official list of "major" battles of the Vietnam War. Some battles could plausibly be classified as either major or minor, or else be classified as one battle within a broader campaign.

Some observers have suggested that the U.S. actually lost more than two dozen battles during Vietnam. But the 10 historians we contacted agreed that most, and possibly all, of the major battles were won by the U.S.

The biggest battles, including Tet and Khe Sanh, "took place in the first half of 1968 and all were clearly American victories," said Edwin E. Moise, a Clemson University historian. But if you expand the universe of battles that qualify as "major," two in particular might be considered U.S. defeats, he said.

One likely loss was the battle at Landing Zone Albany, in November 1965. An American battalion of about 400 men was ambushed by the People’s Army of North Vietnam -- the North Vietnamese army -- and parts of the battalion were overrun, Moise said. The preliminary count of American casualties was 151 killed, 121 wounded and 5 missing.

Since defensive perimeters were established and a majority of U.S. troops did survive the battle, some might not consider it a defeat, but Moise is among those who do. Maj. Steven M. Leonard wrote in the journal Army Logistician that "inevitably, there were those who would draw comparison to" the wipeout of Gen. George A. Custer’s 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn.

The second likely loss was the battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord in mid 1970, which was largely unknown by the public into the mid 1980s.

The United States established Ripcord to help launch attacks in the A Shau and Da Krong valleys, Moise said, but the North Vietnamese army attacked it "so strongly that the American command decided it had better get the U.S. troops out fast if it was to get them out alive. The withdrawal on July 23 was so hasty that the withdrawing troops were not able to take along all their artillery pieces. I would have to call this an American defeat."

Richard H. Kohn, a historian at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), added that the South Vietnamese Army lost battles even with the benefit of U.S. advisers and air power, such as Operation Lam Son 719, the incursion into Laos in 1971 that led to heavy casualties.

Barack Obama says U.S. never lost a major battle in Vietnam | PolitiFact

Hilarious!! First you argue my point, then produce an article that says the same thing....

The US lost in Vietnam because of strategic incompetence and poor leadership.

The ARVN are not US soldiers.

When the US left, the ARVN were in control of all South Vietnam.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,006
1,916
113
Hilarious!! First you argue my point, then produce an article that says the same thing....

The US lost in Vietnam because of strategic incompetence and poor leadership.

The ARVN are not US soldiers.

When the US left, the ARVN were in control of all South Vietnam.


So you disagree with the experts who say America lost 70 battles?

I bet the British Army would have beaten the Vietnamese.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
And the "first modern democracy" (Britain is the world's oldest surviving democracy, not America) was so "innovative" it based its Constitution on Britain's Magna Carta.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.


Blackleaf
Why? Most Britons in Britain had to pay even higher taxes than those Britons in the Thirteen Colonies did, and the vast majority of them had no represntatives in parliament. Women and poor people, for example.

And the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is useless, as in Great Britain Parliament is superior to the constitution.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,006
1,916
113
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
And the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is useless, as in Great Britain Parliament is superior to the constitution.

Don't be a silly boy. Where did you learn this nonsense? In a North American school, no doubt.

The Bill of Rights is in effect in all sixteen of the Commonwealth Realms, including Canada (there's something else you can be thankful to the British Empire for).

The Act sets out that there should be:



  • no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
  • no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
  • freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
  • no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.
  • no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
  • no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
  • the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
  • "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
  • no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

And it was this English Bill of Rights which influenced the "innovative" American one.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,972
14,621
113
Low Earth Orbit
My eyes have seen the glory of the trampling at the zoo. We washed ourselves in British blood and all the mongrels too....
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
Don't be a silly boy. Where did you learn this nonsense? In a North American school, no doubt.

The Bill of Rights is in effect in all sixteen of the Commonwealth Realms, including Canada (there's something else you can be thankful to the British Empire for).

The Act sets out that there should be:



  • no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
  • no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
  • freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
  • no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.
  • no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
  • no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
  • the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
  • "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
  • no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

And it was this English Bill of Rights which influenced the "innovative" American one.


Oh, so what happened to your right to keep arms for your defense??

You see, a REAL Bill of Rights is a limitation on gov't power, a protection of the people from their gov't.

When gov't has the legal ability to ignore a Bill of Rights, then it is useless.

As is the Canadian Bill of Rights.....we used the US model, in which the constitution is superior to the will of Parliament, but we built in so many escape clauses as to make the damned thing useless.

Don't be a silly boy. Where did you learn this nonsense? In a North American school, no doubt.

.

BTW, I'd STFU about North American schools were I you...

World education rankings: which country does best at reading, maths and science? | News | theguardian.com
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
The rebels lost a LOT more battles than they won. But, this evolved into a "World War", with Great Britain also being at war with France, Spain and Portugal. There were battles fought as far away as India during that war.

The primary thing the Rebels had going for them was that they were considered, by the British people, as being fellow Britons. That kept Parliament from devoting the full force of the British military against the Rebels, until it was too late, and the Americans had major allies. Had they done so, early on, the American Revolution would have been defeated, ad all of those American Patriots would no be known as traitors. Their deaths would be celebrated, kind of like Guy Fawkes' is today!

The Americans also kept at it for 7 plus years, refusing to quit, and Great Britain was essentially worn out by the ongoing war. They needed their forces to defeat the French, and they had WAY too many tied up in the American Colonies and parts of Canada.

In addition, the American Rebels became MUCH more proficient in European style war as the Revolution went on. Their leaders generally became MUCH better, and they depended less and less on local militia. When they trapped Cornwallis, they fought that entire battle by using British tactics. When Lord Cornwallis' surrender became known in Britain, even the most diehard Parliamentarians knew that they were either going to have to send MASSIVE force to America, thereby making Britain very vulnerable to attack by the French and Spanish, or they would have to sue for peace.

They made the correct decision, chose to sue for peace, and the former British Colonies became the independent country of The United States of America.

Those newly freed did NOT consider the States to be ANYTHING like the States are today. They saw them as independent countries, with a loose alliance between them.

[NOTE: the British kept massive forces in Nova Scotia, to prevent Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from joining the American Revolution. There was widespread sentiment among the locals to break away from Britain, and they had essentially the same complaints as the Rebels did. That's why tens of thousands of Loyalists (including 3 of my direct ancestors) were given Land Grants in Nova Scotia after the war. The government wanted to make that Colony, and New Brunswick, much more loyal to the homeland.]

I am one of the few that qualifies for membership in The United Empire Loyalists, and the Sons of the American Revolution, as I had a number of direct ancestors that fought on each side during the Revolution. One of them makes be eligible all by himself, as he served on BOTH sides during the Revolution.

  • no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
  • no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
  • freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
  • no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.
  • no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
  • no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
  • the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
  • "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
  • no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

And it was this English Bill of Rights which influenced the "innovative" American one.

Blackleaf, I hate to tell you, but YOU really need to go back to school. Virtually none of this was actually in place before the American Revolution, and it did not apply to ANY colony for many years after it DID come into force for the average British citizen. The "Right's" that you enumerate applied to the Nobility, the wealthy and to those with political influence, but NOT to the common people.

Any of those provisions were subject to being denied, at any time, and there was absolutely NOTHING that the citizenry could do about it.

It was precisely because the British Government could enact taxes, and withhold basic rights at will, that initially brought the American Colonies into conflict with the Crown. Not one voice from any of the Colonies even had the right to speak for those colonies in Parliament, much less actually have a vote in the process.

People could be, and were, locked up for life for debts. People could be sentenced, for petty crimes, to be exiled to any British Colony, and sold as effective slaves. That is a pretty cruel and unusual punishment. If you were brought into court, for ANYTHING, you essentially had no rights at all. You could be convicted on innuendo, and many times you had no idea who had accused you of a crime. There was absolutely NO right of appeal for the "common" people.

You could be executed for stealing bread. But that wasn't "cruel"?

People could be locked up indefinitely, for speaking against the Crown. Newspapers could be shuttered, and the editors of them imprisoned without a trial, for printing anything that the government did not approve of.

You could be imprisoned, or even put to death, for practicing your own religion. If you were a Catholic Priest, you had to be completely underground, or you WOULD be executed. That did not end until the 8140's.

People were tortured to gain confessions, and this was a VERY common practice.

Personal weapons could be, and sometimes were, confiscated by the government without notice or any form of court hearing.

The government could, and frequently did, force homeowners to house several soldiers, and feed them, at the homeowners expense.

Your home could be searched, at any time, by any level of government servant. You had absolutely NO right to resist, and if you did, you could be imprisoned.

Children as young as 3-4 were locked up in prisons, sometimes for years, for the most petty of crimes.

I could go on and on, but I don't think that is necessary. Everything I have written about actually was happening to the Colonists, and they had no recourse at all.

It was also happening to the common people in Great Britain.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Rubbish. The IRA engaged in guerilla tactics against the British Army during the 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence between Ireland and Great Britain (both of which were part of the UK then), but they still couldn't beat the army. The British won the war.

...

The Irish resorted to terrorism and made the price of the conflict too high for the British. Michael Collins and The Squad carried out a wave of terrorism so intense that the British made peace. Thus, the Irish Republic was born.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
The Irish resorted to terrorism and made the price of the conflict too high for the British. Michael Collins and The Squad carried out a wave of terrorism so intense that the British made peace. Thus, the Irish Republic was born.

BL seemed to have missed that.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
...
If you want to look at poor leadership and tactical incompetance look no futher than the Yanks under George Washington. He was a terrible military leader and it's no surprise that the colonists won so few battles.

As for the "poor leadership" of the British - that'll be the same British which won three quarters of the battles despite being VASTLY outnumbered?

George Washington wouldn't give up no matter how many tactical defeats he suffered. The British couldn't deal with such relentlessness.

British General Cornwallis swept from victory to victory in the South, but got cornered at Yorktown where Washington and Rochambeau beat his *** after French Admiral De Grasse defeated the Royal Navy in Chesapeake Bay.

General Sir Banastre Tarleton served under Cornwallis. Tarleton was a terrorist.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
BaalsTears; said:
Oh yeah. I remember how swiftly that happened. Brutal yet effective.



Didn't the Democrats fight on the side of the British? :)


Sorry - this time I cannot honestly say BLAME CLINTON or BLAME OBAMA as history shows it was very anti-British.

The old Democratic party was founded in 1791 by Jefferson & Madison. I believe James Monroe was the last president from the old party. Thereafter it splintered.

We can blame Clinton & Obama for the Great London fire of 1666 and the Great Chicago Fire (hell, we can even add blaming them for the Great San Francisco earthquake!). But not for siding with the Pommies. ;)
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
The American Revolution?
Now how did the US Citizens manage to kick the butts of the worlds best Military machine?
Merchants, clerks, farm boys, tradespeople, workers.


I give up! Blackleaf wasn't there that day?