If Mexico and Canada invade the United States

Vietnam was not a military defeat people! The US backed out because of how negative it was, and it wasn't worth it,, so we left.SonyNintendoFan

Honestly, thats true. LBJ wanted to take up JFK's cause but he was conflicted to the point that he didn't seek a second term. Nixon was elected and said he would take us out of the unpopular war. He began having talks with China, the Peace Accords were signed in January 1973 officially ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam. America had not lost. The fall of Saigon came later, and the loss belongs to South Vietnam.

But I know some here are just kids and probably don't know about these things.

[QUOTE="johnd13"]

Didn' t you know? The US always win.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="johnd13"]

Didn' t you know? The US always win.

MacBoomStick

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

Chaos_HL21

fair enough, I've said my piece on Vietnam.

Mexico and Canada would have no chance vs. the United States.

Keep in mind Americans have lots of guns, many of them along the border states with Mexico, the U.S. would be pretty much impossible to invade and hold onto. And if we brought our military into it, game over.

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

AFBrat77

fair enough, I've said my piece on Vietnam.

Mexico and Canada would have no chance vs. the United States.

Keep in mind Americans have lots of guns, many of them along the border states with Mexico, the U.S. would be pretty much impossible to invade and hold onto. And if we brought our military into it, game over.

Drone attacks!dramaybaz

Not to mention rolling Abrams tanks over Mexico, A-10 Warthogs taking out some ground targets, with the old B-52's taking out others, wouldn't even need F-15 Eagles, F-22 Raptors, or advanced bombers.

U.S. Navy can fire missiles from both sides of Mexico. And don't let me get started on Canada and its comparatively miniscule population and military.

Mexico isn't Vietnam, can't hide in the jungles.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

JohnF111

fair enough, I've said my piece on Vietnam.

Mexico and Canada would have no chance vs. the United States.

Keep in mind Americans have lots of guns, many of them along the border states with Mexico, the U.S. would be pretty much impossible to invade and hold onto. And if we brought our military into it, game over.

see my statement above :)

I believe the TC wanted just the nations of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. involved. It would be a lopsided victory in favor of the U.S.

this is a dumb thread

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

Chaos_HL21

It wasn't that hard considering American losses were at 50,000 and Vietnamese loses are averaged at a million.

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]Drone attacks!AFBrat77

Not to mention rolling Abrams tanks over Mexico, A-10 Warthogs taking out some ground targets, with the old B-52's taking out others, wouldn't even need F-15 Eagles, F-22 Raptors, or advanced bombers.

U.S. Navy can fire missiles from both sides of Mexico. And don't let me get started on Canada and its comparatively miniscule population and military.

Mexico isn't Vietnam, can't hide in the jungles.

Didn' t you know? The US always win.

johnd13

If you think about, there's already many from both countries already here. I do know Canadians seem to like my hometown in Northern Nevada. Every 4th of July, a lot of Canadians love to join the parade. :lol:

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

JohnF111

fair enough, I've said my piece on Vietnam.

Mexico and Canada would have no chance vs. the United States.

Keep in mind Americans have lots of guns, many of them along the border states with Mexico, the U.S. would be pretty much impossible to invade and hold onto. And if we brought our military into it, game over.

Then the US ends up with more territory. /threadLJS9502_basic

Canada and what army? The Princess Patricia Light Infantry? Please. The US would curbstomp both of them. And then Mexico would probably be taken over by the drug cartels their military is BARELY beating.

airshocker

Mexico wouldn't even be able to invade Texas. Lonelynight

Like someone said earlier, the US puts more money into their military than Mexico and Canada put togethergamerguru100

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"]Like someone said earlier, the US puts more money into their military than Mexico and Canada put togetherAce6301

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="johnd13"]

Didn' t you know? The US always win.

MacBoomStick

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Why are people talking aboutVietnam in a topic about Mexico and Canada invading the US. It is hard to fight a guerrilla war inside of the country you are invading. It would be a regular type of warfare.

JohnF111

fair enough, I've said my piece on Vietnam.

Mexico and Canada would have no chance vs. the United States.

Keep in mind Americans have lots of guns, many of them along the border states with Mexico, the U.S. would be pretty much impossible to invade and hold onto. And if we brought our military into it, game over.

Yes, the Russians and North Koreans are going to send their armies over the largest ocean in the world by beating the most powerful navy in the world in the process. :roll: It's not as if the U.S. has a bigger population, bigger economy and more military spending than all of these countries combined or something so obviously it would be hard pressed to win when you bring those two into it.

We would get fellow Canadian Alex Trebek to befuddle Americans by continually asking them what the sound of one hand clapping is...Whilst Mexicans slap them upside the head with the answer...Hockey pucks and cactii FTW:P

[QUOTE="MacBoomStick"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Vietnam

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="MacBoomStick"] As far as casualties go North Vietnam/Vietcog lost big time.MacBoomStick

Then the U.S. would use that as an excuse to get some more land.

The budget thing is cool and all. But war is about strategy, tactics and intelligence. And considering US puts billions of dollars they do not have into their silly defense program I wouldn't be surprised to see real guerrilla attacks knocking them down a notch or two.MrPraline

Not to mention the most important thing: Logistics. Most underrated part of any war, Ever, sadly also the single most important aspect.

In the Thread case it sould work in the US favor since they are not attacking, But the pure idiotic statements here are astounding.

In Vietnam the US suffered a huge ratio of losses, they had less deaths, but less people, the Vietnam war COST too much, and the logistics made that the US could barely move at all. They LOST If you do not understand basic principles in wars, congrats, back to Highschool and read up on basic history.

WEll strike that, Since the French pretty much saved the US ass in the war of Independence, Gradeschool would be better. Korea ring a bell?

They did not do too well in Afganistan, and the US have rarely if every fought a war by themself, so they can not be claimed the sole victor of any war scenatio through the cause of history, and I do NOT really accept winning a civil war as winning a war, since the US would win either way in that scenario.

But the US is a hugely effective Militery so in the scenario, and defending the US would win hands down, not even a question. The Inability for Modern Militery to fight anything that is not an army, is mostly by Preassure above, but that does not negate a loss at all. Since A war can only go on as long as the homelands can bear the preassure.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]The budget thing is cool and all. But war is about strategy, tactics and intelligence. And considering US puts billions of dollars they do not have into their silly defense program I wouldn't be surprised to see real guerrilla attacks knocking them down a notch or two.Maddie_Larkin

Not to mention the most important thing: Logistics. Most underrated part of any war, Ever, sadly also the single most important aspect.

In the Thread case it sould work in the US favor since they are not attacking, But the pure idiotic statements here are astounding.

In Vietnam the US suffered a huge ratio of losses, they had less deaths, but less people, the Vietnam war COST too much, and the logistics made that the US could barely move at all. They LOST If you do not understand basic principles in wars, congrats, back to Highschool and read up on basic history.

WEll strike that, Since the French pretty much saved the US ass in the war of Independence, Gradeschool would be better. Korea ring a bell?

They did not do too well in Afganistan, and the US have rarely if every fought a war by themself, so they can not be claimed the sole victor of any war scenatio through the cause of history, and I do NOT really accept winning a civil war as winning a war, since the US would win either way in that scenario.

But the US is a hugely effective Militery so in the scenario, and defending the US would win hands down, not even a question. The Inability for Modern Militery to fight anything that is not an army, is mostly by Preassure above, but that does not negate a loss at all. Since A war can only go on as long as the homelands can bear the preassure.

I don't agree with you much at all, but I mentioned that I wasn't going to talk about Vietnam anymore, and I'm sticking with that. Look at the last statement I said about Vietnam. Thats the facts.

The statement about the Revolutionary War is a*sinine, American rebels would have won the war with or without Lafayettes and French help. George Washington outmanouvered the British time and time again. Washington can not be blamed if the British made some fatal blunders as well.

I also do not agree with you about the Civil War, had the South won, the U.S. would have lost. The Confederate States had seceeded.

The U.S. is unarguably equal in importance with Russia as the major reason the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were defeated in World War 2. Had the U.S. not intervened or had not thrown their support to the Allies even beforeDecember 1941, the Axis powers would have won the War.

Although arriving late into WW1, the U.S. infantry is often cited as the major reason Germany lost that war.

The U.S. won the Cold War vs. the Soviet Union. period.

Korea was neither a win nor a loss.

The U.S. military is among the best trained in the world, has the most advanced weaponry in the world, and could never be invaded or occupied by another country using conventional weaponry. Not gonna happen. The U.S. would obliterate a Mexico/Canada alliance.

You have to understand how difficult the U.S. has it when going into other countries and fighting them on their home field. EXTREMELY difficult.

Also, amazing how people forget how often we have bailed out other countries by adding our military might to theirs.

The U.S. pulled out of the Vietnam "conflict" because of political pressure, at that point the U.S. had not lost. South Vietnam was left to fend for itself and South Vietnam lost.AFBrat77

That's one way to spin it I suppose.

"We didn't lose. We took our ball and went home."

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

I don't know, he seems to think China is still communist but it really isn't. Thats his criteria for why he thinks America lost, but going by that they didn't ;)

AFBrat77

Aren't they a bit more capitalist these days? If so then we can count it as an American win. Certainly the domino effect is dead, unless capitalism represents the dominos.

This is asinine. About like The US and the United Kingdom engaging in trade years after the American revolution and some guy in England proudly exclaiming "See, we won the war afterall!".

The statement about the Revolutionary War is a*sinine, American rebels would have won the war with or without Lafayettes and French help.AFBrat77

No, they would not have. The French provided not only troops, but also money and supplies to the American rebels. They also often engaged the British at sea. You need to brush up on history, because the French were absolutely vital to the American victory.

BACK TO BACK WORLD WAR CHAMPS!! 'MURICA!! FUG YEAH!!lloveLamp

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]The statement about the Revolutionary War is a*sinine, American rebels would have won the war with or without Lafayettes and French help.worlock77

No, they would not have. The French provided not only troops, but also money and supplies to the American rebels. They also often engaged the British at sea. You need to brush up on history, because the French were absolutely vital to the American victory.

There is so much miss information going on about the Vietnam war here. First off America was devastating the north Vietnamese threw out the whole war, casualties where for every 1 American killed at least 20 Vietnamese where killed. When it came to battles the Americans didn't lose a single battle against the Vietnamese forces. What forced America out of Vietnam was popular demand to end a unpopular war, which reached its greatest height after the Tet offensive which was militarily a massive failure for North Vietnam since they didn't achieve one object and suffered horrible losses but broke American moral at home.

Even then it is still hard to truly claim America lost the Vietnam war, mostly because when we left it was like Korea. We had Vietnam split into a communist North and a capitalist South with a ceasefire like the one Korea has now. We completely left Vietnam in 1971 and it wasn't until 1974 that North Vietnam started to fight with South Vietnam again but this time we did not come to help South Vietnam and in 1975 North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam. While ultimately South Vietnam did fall to North Vietnam it isn't like it fell while we where there and it isn't like we made a hasty retreat with South Vietnam falling shortly after like some post here seem to be implying but more of we beat the crap out of North Vietnam militarily, settled for a quick way out because of lack of support at home instead of finishing the job, and when the fighting started again years later we decided to stay out of it.

As for America being invaded by both Canada and Mexico I see it going like this. For Canada I see Quebec surrendering without the first few hours of the conflict due to its extremely French culture, I see the rest of Canada surrendering a few days later once they realize there living conditions and way of life would be basically the exact same if they where annexed by America and would accept American annexation without any real conflict. As for Mexico I see something entirely different, I see the ranks of Mexico's military swell to gigantic proportion with new troops ready to invade America. I see Mexico placing its new gigantic military on America's border ready to invade the South Western Part of America. I see the Mexican military crossing the border in such a pace that hasn't been seen since Blitzkrieg warfare in Europe and once over the border I see the largest mass desertion ever witnessed in world history of an invading military. Many of the former Mexican soldiers turning on Mexico joining the American forces in attacking what little remains of the Mexican military and helping in the conquest of Mexico in the hope they and there families will be granted citizen ship.

Of course I was being stupid in that description of America being invaded by Mexico and Canada and used as many stereotypes as I could think of without having slept for 24 hours.

There is so much miss information going on about the Vietnam war here. First off America was devastating the north Vietnamese threw out the whole war, casualties where for every 1 American killed at least 20 Vietnamese where killed. When it came to battles the Americans didn't lose a single battle against the Vietnamese forces. What forced America out of Vietnam was popular demand to end a unpopular war, which reached its greatest height after the Tet offensive which was militarily a massive failure for North Vietnam since they didn't achieve one object and suffered horrible losses but broke American moral at home.

Even then it is still hard to truly claim America lost the Vietnam war, mostly because when we left it was like Korea. We had Vietnam split into a communist North and a capitalist South with a ceasefire like the one Korea has now. We completely left Vietnam in 1971 and it wasn't until 1974 that North Vietnam started to fight with South Vietnam again but this time we did not come to help South Vietnam and in 1975 North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam. While ultimately South Vietnam did fall to North Vietnam it isn't like it fell while we where there and it isn't like we made a hasty retreat with South Vietnam falling shortly after like some post here seem to be implying but more of we beat the crap out of North Vietnam militarily, settled for a quick way out because of lack of support at home instead of finishing the job, and when the fighting started again years later we decided to stay out of it.

As for America being invaded by both Canada and Mexico I see it going like this. For Canada I see Quebec surrendering without the first few hours of the conflict due to its extremely French culture, I see the rest of Canada surrendering a few days later once they realize there living conditions and way of life would be basically the exact same if they where annexed by America and would accept American annexation without any real conflict. As for Mexico I see something entirely different, I see the ranks of Mexico's military swell to gigantic proportion with new troops ready to invade America. I see Mexico placing its new gigantic military on America's border ready to invade the South Western Part of America. I see the Mexican military crossing the border in such a pace that hasn't been seen since Blitzkrieg warfare in Europe and once over the border I see the largest mass desertion ever witnessed in world history of an invading military. Many of the former Mexican soldiers turning on Mexico joining the American forces in attacking what little remains of the Mexican military and helping in the conquest of Mexico in the hope they and there families will be granted citizen ship.

Of course I was being stupid in that description of America being invaded by Mexico and Canada and used as many stereotypes as I could think of without having slept for 24 hours.

Shadow_Fighter

Regarless of the reasons for leaving they didn't get what they wanted and the opposing side did. They lost.

If you consider not leaveing until 1975 as pulling out the diplomats, civilian personal, and extremely minimal military forces used to guard the Embassy then ya, we didn't leave till 1975. Only 1373 Americans where flown out of South Vietnam so it was hardly a military pressences.

As for 1971 they pulled out the vast majority and by 1973 what little remained was pulled out as the cease fire was signed by both sides and the fighitng didn't openly start again till 1974.

Since you doubt what I was saying about the cease firehttp://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/paris-peace-accords-signed

We did get what we wanted but it didn't last more then 2 years and we decided not to go back for a second round.

There is so much miss information going on about the Vietnam war here. First off America was devastating the north Vietnamese threw out the whole war, casualties where for every 1 American killed at least 20 Vietnamese where killed. When it came to battles the Americans didn't lose a single battle against the Vietnamese forces. What forced America out of Vietnam was popular demand to end a unpopular war, which reached its greatest height after the Tet offensive which was militarily a massive failure for North Vietnam since they didn't achieve one object and suffered horrible losses but broke American moral at home.

Even then it is still hard to truly claim America lost the Vietnam war, mostly because when we left it was like Korea. We had Vietnam split into a communist North and a capitalist South with a ceasefire like the one Korea has now. We completely left Vietnam in 1971 and it wasn't until 1974 that North Vietnam started to fight with South Vietnam again but this time we did not come to help South Vietnam and in 1975 North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam. While ultimately South Vietnam did fall to North Vietnam it isn't like it fell while we where there and it isn't like we made ahasty retreat with South Vietnam falling shortly after like some post here seem to be implying but more of we beat the crap out of North Vietnam militarily, settled for a quick way out because of lack of support at home instead of finishing the job, and when the fighting started again years later we decided to stay out of it.

As for America being invaded by both Canada and Mexico I see it going like this. For Canada I see Quebec surrendering without the first few hours of the conflict due to its extremely French culture, I see the rest of Canada surrendering a few days later once they realize there living conditions and way of life would be basically the exact same if they where annexed by America and would accept American annexation without any real conflict. As for Mexico I see something entirely different, I see the ranks of Mexico's military swell to gigantic proportion with new troops ready to invade America. I see Mexico placing its new gigantic military on America's border ready to invade the South Western Part of America. I see the Mexican military crossing the border in such a pace that hasn't been seen since Blitzkrieg warfare in Europe and once over the border I see the largest mass desertion ever witnessed in world history of an invading military. Many of the former Mexican soldiers turning on Mexico joining the American forces in attacking what little remains of the Mexican military and helping in the conquest of Mexico in the hope they and there families will be granted citizen ship.

Of course I was being stupid in that description of America being invaded by Mexico and Canada and used as many stereotypes as I could think of without having slept for 24 hours.

Shadow_Fighter

For the first bolded point... Have you watched videos of the evacuation of Saigon? American soldiers are literally hanging off of helicopters. It's like something out of a cartoon. It's not even a question that the US lost Vietnam. Even the casualty figures favored the NVA and VietCong towards the end. it's something like 20,000 US to 300 Vietnamese (last year, maybe? remember it from history class). It's basically the opposite of what happened in the beginning of the war, where arguably militarily we were winning but psychologically and tactically we were failing.

As for the second, we never really fought the North Vietnamese until the very end, when we started to lose. Up until 1968, and the Tet Offensive, all conflict was below the 17th parallel, and we were fighting South Vietnamese guerrillas (VietCong). After Tet Offensive, most of the Vietcong were killed (though the offensive was a blow to American morale), and finally Uncle Ho had to fight the war himself. Also, keep in mind that "enemies killed" for the US meant any Vietnamese killed, even civilians. Victims of My Lai were included in statistics and as dead "enemies". Overall, we did not "beat the crap" out of the North. Our only direct action against the north, Operation Rolling Thunder, was a joke and wasted more supplies than it destroyed.

I agree with you that there is misinformation going around.

It doesn't matter if they where hanging off the helicopters or not and I am not deny that the evacuation of Saigon was chaotic mostly because we also took as many SouthVietnamese as we could fit in the helicopters but it doesn't change the fact that only 1373 Americans where evacuated from Saigon with most of them being diplomats, civilians, and a few soldiers guarding the embassy. By the time Saigon fell the US already pulled out all US military forces two years prior.

What source are you using that the Vietamese/VietKong favored them instead of US forces. Every single source I have read has stated that Americans killed far many more Vietnamese then they killed of us so if I could prove a link to some kind of source I would appreicate it. I hate to use wikipedia as a source but its casulities part on the right matches for the most part everything I have read from other sources give or take a thousand deaths here or there.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

That is just simplity incorrect information, we where fighting both the Viet Kong and North Vietnamese forces threw out the whole war. It is true that we did most if not all of the fighitng, can't remember because as I said I been up for over 24 hours, below the 17th parallel but we did fight both threw out the whole war. Where I think you are making a mistake is in that the Viet Cong where made up of both irregualor guerrilla forces and regular North Vietnam military units.

Lastly civilian casaulities are not listed in with the amound of combatants killed, they are all factored into a total amount killed during the war but all records do make a clear distinction between civilian and combatant deaths.

One can not deny that we did settle for a situtaiton in Vietnam similar to what was in Korea and thus reached our objective, but decided not to stay for the second round and left South Vietnam to fend for itself.

I would normally give a more detailed response but I got some stuff to do.

It doesn't matter if they where hanging off the helicopters or not and I am not deny that the evacuation of Saigon was chaotic mostly because we also took as many SouthVietnamese as we could fit in the helicopters but it doesn't change the fact that only 1373 Americans where evacuated from Saigon with most of them being diplomats, civilians, and a few soldiers guarding the embassy. By the time Saigon fell the US already pulled out all US military forces two years prior.

What source are you using that the Vietamese/VietKong favored them instead of US forces. Every single source I have read has stated that Americans killed far many more Vietnamese then they killed of us so if I could prove a link to some kind of source I would appreicate it. I hate to use wikipedia as a source but its casulities part on the right matches for the most part everything I have read from other sources give or take a thousand deaths here or there.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war

That is just simplity incorrect information, we where fighting both the Viet Kong and North Vietnamese forces threw out the whole war. It is true that we did most if not all of the fighitng, can't remember because as I said I been up for over 24 hours, below the 17th parallel but we did fight both threw out the whole war. Where I think you are making a mistake is in that the Viet Cong where made up of both irregualor guerrilla forces and regular North Vietnam military units.

Lastly civilian casaulities are not listed in with the amound of combatants killed, they are all factored into a total amount killed during the war but all records do make a clear distinction between civilian and combatant deaths.

One can not deny that we did settle for a situtaiton in Vietnam similar to what was in Korea and thus reached our objective, but decided not to stay for the second round and left South Vietnam to fend for itself.

I would normally give a more detailed response but I got some stuff to do.

Shadow_Fighter

First bolded- Like I said, I don't have a clear source for that information. It came from a lecture. And yes, the US killed way more in the beginning, and overall. But in the end, we started losing more troops. There was no "peace with honor", Americans were being slaughtered so we got the hell out of there. I'm not sure about the number of troops you said leaving, but even if that number is correct those soldiers were running for their lives.

Point two- yes, we were fighting both NVA and Vietcong, but we never fought in North Vietnam, and that's a fact. And no, I'm not mistaken, the Vietcong were purely South Vietnamese. The NVA was a seperate body, with uniforms and tanks and conventional tactics, while the Vietcong was a south vietnamese resistance group (the political arm being the NLF) created to fight Diem. The NVA fought us before the Tet Offensive, but it was rare. Hanoi did not want to waste its troops- it made more sense to have south vietnamese (the vietcong) die for the north.

Third- records now make a distinction, but back then there was none. Any Vietnamese killed, unless he/she (were women allowed in the military?) was ARVN, was counted as an enemy. Any reliable source shows this- while we have accurate estimates of American casualties, the Vietnamese casualties could be any number upwards of 1 million. The US government just put random figures out there. Read or watch Nixon's "Peace with honor" speech- he basically pulls numbers out of a hat the entire time. He isn't even consistent.

The situation in Korea and in Vietnam is completely different- Vietnam is communist. The "North" (really most vietnamese north or south supported communist rule, as evident by the elections called for by the geneva accords in which Ho Chi Minh won) flat out won. There's no denying that. In Korea, a stalemate was reached. North Korea captured most of the peninsula, US pushed them to the Yalu River, PLA of China pushed the US back to the original border between North and South. Neither side took much ground from there. In that case, there's a gray area for whether or not the US "won". But in Vietnam there is black and white. We lost.

I would give it maybe 2 weeks for Canada (they have a better military, but the US doesn't have much ground to cover in an invasion), and less than a month for the US to reach Mexico city if the mexicans didn't surrender before that.