Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
3 views
Skip to first unread message
:ПеаБраин
Mar 26, 2013, 5:11:21 PM3/26/13
to
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on
the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
"-A Better War
Lewis Sorley's A Better War challenges the accepted view of Vietnam,
does so with great authority, and will hopefully thereby foster a
significant re-examination of this sorest spot in the national psyche.
The basic premise of the book is that late in 1970 or early in 1971
the United States had essentially won the Vietnam War. That is to
say, we had defeated the Viet Cong in the field, returned effective
control of most of the population to the South Vietnamese and created
a situation where the South Vietnamese armed forces could continue the
war on their own, so long as we provided them with adequate supplies
and intelligence, and carried through on our promise to bomb the North
if they violated peace agreements.
Sorley cites Sir Robert Thompson's assessment that :
In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52
attacks on the Hanoi area,
you had won the war. It was over.
At that point, the Viet Cong had been destroyed, we had definitely won
the insurgency phase of the War. Additionally, the North had been
defeated in the initial phase of conventional warfare, and had finally
had the War brought home to them in a significant way. Though the
overall War was certainly not over, it was sitting there, just waiting
to be won.
So what happened ? ..."
...One book can not change peoples' minds about a matter as
contentious as the Vietnam War. In fact, the intellectual classes and
the Baby Boom Generation have so much of themselves invested in the
idea that the War was wrong and unwinnable that it's unlikely that any
number of books could change their minds. But as the years go by and
as new generations take a fresh look at the War, it is important that
they approach it with an open mind...."
google any part to read more
the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
"-A Better War
Lewis Sorley's A Better War challenges the accepted view of Vietnam,
does so with great authority, and will hopefully thereby foster a
significant re-examination of this sorest spot in the national psyche.
The basic premise of the book is that late in 1970 or early in 1971
the United States had essentially won the Vietnam War. That is to
say, we had defeated the Viet Cong in the field, returned effective
control of most of the population to the South Vietnamese and created
a situation where the South Vietnamese armed forces could continue the
war on their own, so long as we provided them with adequate supplies
and intelligence, and carried through on our promise to bomb the North
if they violated peace agreements.
Sorley cites Sir Robert Thompson's assessment that :
In my view, on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52
attacks on the Hanoi area,
you had won the war. It was over.
At that point, the Viet Cong had been destroyed, we had definitely won
the insurgency phase of the War. Additionally, the North had been
defeated in the initial phase of conventional warfare, and had finally
had the War brought home to them in a significant way. Though the
overall War was certainly not over, it was sitting there, just waiting
to be won.
So what happened ? ..."
...One book can not change peoples' minds about a matter as
contentious as the Vietnam War. In fact, the intellectual classes and
the Baby Boom Generation have so much of themselves invested in the
idea that the War was wrong and unwinnable that it's unlikely that any
number of books could change their minds. But as the years go by and
as new generations take a fresh look at the War, it is important that
they approach it with an open mind...."
google any part to read more
dusty
Mar 26, 2013, 7:19:56 PM3/26/13
to
obscene Yankee Imperialist juggernaut that when the Chinese, having
made their peace with the USA, invaded the North four years after the
Vietnamese victory, they too were sent packing.
"Nothing is more precious than Independence and Liberty.
"You fools! Don't you realize what it means if the Chinese remain?
Don't you remember your history? The last time the Chinese came, they
stayed a thousand years. The French are foreigners. They are weak.
Colonialism is dying. The white man is finished in Asia. But if the
Chinese stay now, they will never go. As for me, I prefer to sniff
French shit for five years than to eat Chinese shit for the rest of
my
life."
Ho Chi Minh
"It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me."
Ho Chi Minh
dusty
Mar 26, 2013, 8:00:11 PM3/26/13
to
might have prevented it:
What drove the US invasion of Vietnam:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and
as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk
emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to
this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in
the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more
than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -
economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every
State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military-
Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
What might have, but didn't prevent the US invasion, because the US
government became the agents of the Military Industrial Complex:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us
tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second
will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Thomas Jefferson, second President of the United States.
chatnoir
Mar 26, 2013, 8:58:41 PM3/26/13
to
Nixon stopped the bombing!
Planet Visitor II
Mar 27, 2013, 1:09:25 AM3/27/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Anyone with half a brain knows that the U.S. did NOT lose the MILITARY
WAR in Vietnam. Only half-brain anti-American idiots who never saw
a day in Vietnam during the war like to pander the silly notion that the
Viet Cong and the North Vietnam rag-tag military mastered the U.S. military.
It was Kissinger who lost that war for the U.S., and he never served a day
in the military. If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders
would have simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own
military being killed and we would have remained there until at least1980.
Because we were a society sick at our moral core by ever contending there
was any need whatsoever to consider that tiny piece of land to have any
military significance in the U.S. defensive posture.
Eventually, North Vietnam would have run out of resources, since we were
far from running a "guns or butter" economy along with running that war.
Our Peace Wall would now have 200,000 names at least, but North Vietnam's
wall would have been ten times as large. And no matter what, a few
years after we left, with North Vietnam totally defeated militarily, South
Vietnam would have internally collapsed politically, because it was held
together with nothing but American guns, glue and money... making
some very bad people very rich. And we would be right where we are
today, except for the million of humans that would probably have been
slaughtered.
But this claim about the U.S. losing the military war in Vietnam should
not be the issue. There NEVER should have been such a war!! We should
NEVER have slaughtered so many innocent human beings under false
pretenses!!! The immorality of the U.S. in even engaging in such a war
dwarfs any implied immorality in our engaging in war in Iraq. Not one
American life was in danger from forces in Vietnam if we had never
ventured in. It was a war with no reason whatsoever. Proven by the
fact that today Vietnam is in the same political position it would be
in if we had never set a single military foot in Vietnam.
It has to be said that most of our military LEADERS, agreed completely
with the belief that we needed to kill opponents of the very civilian leaders
of South Vietnam that WE kept in power. And if they had been permitted
they would have killed ten times as many as they led American troops
to kill. Thus the loss of innocent lives in Vietnam has to be seen as nothing
but mass murder on their part. Further... in that act of horrendous
deceit and knavery we most certainly did more than lose our presumed
"innocence." We turned an ideological and moral corner... and still
have not found our way back again.
Planet Visitor II
WAR in Vietnam. Only half-brain anti-American idiots who never saw
a day in Vietnam during the war like to pander the silly notion that the
Viet Cong and the North Vietnam rag-tag military mastered the U.S. military.
It was Kissinger who lost that war for the U.S., and he never served a day
in the military. If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders
would have simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own
military being killed and we would have remained there until at least1980.
Because we were a society sick at our moral core by ever contending there
was any need whatsoever to consider that tiny piece of land to have any
military significance in the U.S. defensive posture.
Eventually, North Vietnam would have run out of resources, since we were
far from running a "guns or butter" economy along with running that war.
Our Peace Wall would now have 200,000 names at least, but North Vietnam's
wall would have been ten times as large. And no matter what, a few
years after we left, with North Vietnam totally defeated militarily, South
Vietnam would have internally collapsed politically, because it was held
together with nothing but American guns, glue and money... making
some very bad people very rich. And we would be right where we are
today, except for the million of humans that would probably have been
slaughtered.
But this claim about the U.S. losing the military war in Vietnam should
not be the issue. There NEVER should have been such a war!! We should
NEVER have slaughtered so many innocent human beings under false
pretenses!!! The immorality of the U.S. in even engaging in such a war
dwarfs any implied immorality in our engaging in war in Iraq. Not one
American life was in danger from forces in Vietnam if we had never
ventured in. It was a war with no reason whatsoever. Proven by the
fact that today Vietnam is in the same political position it would be
in if we had never set a single military foot in Vietnam.
It has to be said that most of our military LEADERS, agreed completely
with the belief that we needed to kill opponents of the very civilian leaders
of South Vietnam that WE kept in power. And if they had been permitted
they would have killed ten times as many as they led American troops
to kill. Thus the loss of innocent lives in Vietnam has to be seen as nothing
but mass murder on their part. Further... in that act of horrendous
deceit and knavery we most certainly did more than lose our presumed
"innocence." We turned an ideological and moral corner... and still
have not found our way back again.
Planet Visitor II
Poetic Justice
Mar 27, 2013, 1:55:58 AM3/27/13
to
chatnoir wrote;
>Only the removal of the crook
>Nixon stopped the bombing!
Really? OK let me see if I have this right.
1961 JFK becomes President, the US has 760 troops in Vietnam (VN).
1963 JFK shot and LBJ becomes President and the year ends with 16,300
troops in VN.
1969 (January) Nixon becomes President with LBJ's *536,100* troops in
VN.
1972 Nixon has 24,200 troops in VN.
1973 In the same month (January) Nixon is sworn in for his 2nd term the
Paris Peace treaty is signed.
During 1973 Nixon has reduced the troops to 50 in VN.
1974 on August 8 Nixon resigns.
So in that 1.5 yrs from Treaty to Resignation what did Nixon bomb?
Anyone who lived thru it in the military (me in the early 1970's) always
knew this was LBJ's War as did everyone else with common sense/facts.
And that Nixon ended it in 4 yrs which was less time than it took LBJ to
put *500,000 more* troops in Vietnam.
>Only the removal of the crook
>Nixon stopped the bombing!
1961 JFK becomes President, the US has 760 troops in Vietnam (VN).
1963 JFK shot and LBJ becomes President and the year ends with 16,300
troops in VN.
1969 (January) Nixon becomes President with LBJ's *536,100* troops in
VN.
1972 Nixon has 24,200 troops in VN.
1973 In the same month (January) Nixon is sworn in for his 2nd term the
Paris Peace treaty is signed.
During 1973 Nixon has reduced the troops to 50 in VN.
1974 on August 8 Nixon resigns.
So in that 1.5 yrs from Treaty to Resignation what did Nixon bomb?
Anyone who lived thru it in the military (me in the early 1970's) always
knew this was LBJ's War as did everyone else with common sense/facts.
And that Nixon ended it in 4 yrs which was less time than it took LBJ to
put *500,000 more* troops in Vietnam.
chatnoir
Mar 27, 2013, 8:49:55 AM3/27/13
to
On Mar 26, 11:55 pm, paradisel...@webtv.net (Poetic Justice) wrote:
> chatnoir wrote;
>
> >Only the removal of the crook
> >Nixon stopped the bombing!
>
> Really? OK let me see if I have this right.
>
> 1961 JFK becomes President, the US has 760 troops in Vietnam (VN).
>
> 1963 JFK shot and LBJ becomes President and the year ends with 16,300
> troops in VN.
>
> 1969 (January) Nixon becomes President with LBJ's *536,100* troops in
> VN.
>
> 1972 Nixon has 24,200 troops in VN.
>
> 1973 In the same month (January) Nixon is sworn in for his 2nd term the
> Paris Peace treaty is signed.
> During 1973 Nixon has reduced the troops to 50 in VN.
>
> 1974 on August 8 Nixon resigns.
>
> So in that 1.5 yrs from Treaty to Resignation what did Nixon bomb?
Hanoi to get the peace agreements started. He was ready to bomb again
> chatnoir wrote;
>
> >Only the removal of the crook
> >Nixon stopped the bombing!
>
> Really? OK let me see if I have this right.
>
> 1961 JFK becomes President, the US has 760 troops in Vietnam (VN).
>
> 1963 JFK shot and LBJ becomes President and the year ends with 16,300
> troops in VN.
>
> 1969 (January) Nixon becomes President with LBJ's *536,100* troops in
> VN.
>
> 1972 Nixon has 24,200 troops in VN.
>
> 1973 In the same month (January) Nixon is sworn in for his 2nd term the
> Paris Peace treaty is signed.
> During 1973 Nixon has reduced the troops to 50 in VN.
>
> 1974 on August 8 Nixon resigns.
>
> So in that 1.5 yrs from Treaty to Resignation what did Nixon bomb?
had say
North Vietnam invaded the South = Gerald Ford "The war is over"
>
> Anyone who lived thru it in the military (me in the early 1970's) always
> knew this was LBJ's War as did everyone else with common sense/facts.
agree to the peace treaty Johnson bargained for before the '68
election!
>
> And that Nixon ended it in 4 yrs which was less time than it took LBJ to
> put *500,000 more* troops in Vietnam.
after the Nixon crook was removed!
chatnoir
Mar 27, 2013, 8:57:06 AM3/27/13
to
On Mar 26, 11:09 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-08/news/0911070228_1_recalls-vietnam-war-military
Henry Kissinger recalls military service during World War II
Former Secretary of State takes 'great pride' in memories of those
years
November 08, 2009|By Ron Grossman, TRIBUNE REPORTER
As secretary of state, Henry Kissinger moved confidently through the
corridors of power. But during a telephone interview last week, he was
concerned I'd gotten his war record wrong.
Born in a town in Bavaria, Kissinger was among a group of German Jews
who escaped the Nazis, then went back to Europe in the U.S. Army.
From a recent book on those Jewish GIs, I'd gotten a shorthand version
of how the value of his linguistic and intellectual skills were
discovered. He straightened me out.
"No, no, I was not assigned to cleaning latrines," Kissinger said. "I
was a rifleman."
Except for the famous voice, it could have been a conversation in an
American Legion Hall.
Reached at his office in New York, he explained that members of his
company took turns cleaning latrines. The latrine cleaner also was
responsible for the unit's situation map. Once, when he was doing
double duty, a general happened to come by and ordered him to explain
the map.
The general's follow-up question: "What are you doing in a rifle
company?"
Shortly, Kissinger was re-assigned to the 84th Infantry Division,
known as the "Railsplitters" for its roots in an Illinois unit in
which Abe Lincoln is said to have served.
Kissinger recalled coming to the U.S. at 15, lacking a sense of
national identity: Jews had become non-persons in Hitler's Germany.
Serving with GIs from the Midwest made him feel American.
Decades later, some questioned his role in the Vietnam War and other
U.S. policies. Yet his memories of his service in Germany are
unsullied.
"I look back at those years with great pride," Kissinger said. "World
War II was a war without any moral ambiguity."
> Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yea, I knew a guy who was sent to South Veitnam in the late '50's.
His job was to cut off the heads of Teachers, labor leaders and
certain politicans (Who opposed the South Vietnamese Government; but
not Viet Cong). He would blame the killings on the Viet Cong and get
two for one!
Henry Kissinger recalls military service during World War II
Former Secretary of State takes 'great pride' in memories of those
years
November 08, 2009|By Ron Grossman, TRIBUNE REPORTER
As secretary of state, Henry Kissinger moved confidently through the
corridors of power. But during a telephone interview last week, he was
concerned I'd gotten his war record wrong.
Born in a town in Bavaria, Kissinger was among a group of German Jews
who escaped the Nazis, then went back to Europe in the U.S. Army.
From a recent book on those Jewish GIs, I'd gotten a shorthand version
of how the value of his linguistic and intellectual skills were
discovered. He straightened me out.
"No, no, I was not assigned to cleaning latrines," Kissinger said. "I
was a rifleman."
Except for the famous voice, it could have been a conversation in an
American Legion Hall.
Reached at his office in New York, he explained that members of his
company took turns cleaning latrines. The latrine cleaner also was
responsible for the unit's situation map. Once, when he was doing
double duty, a general happened to come by and ordered him to explain
the map.
The general's follow-up question: "What are you doing in a rifle
company?"
Shortly, Kissinger was re-assigned to the 84th Infantry Division,
known as the "Railsplitters" for its roots in an Illinois unit in
which Abe Lincoln is said to have served.
Kissinger recalled coming to the U.S. at 15, lacking a sense of
national identity: Jews had become non-persons in Hitler's Germany.
Serving with GIs from the Midwest made him feel American.
Decades later, some questioned his role in the Vietnam War and other
U.S. policies. Yet his memories of his service in Germany are
unsullied.
"I look back at those years with great pride," Kissinger said. "World
War II was a war without any moral ambiguity."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yea, I knew a guy who was sent to South Veitnam in the late '50's.
His job was to cut off the heads of Teachers, labor leaders and
certain politicans (Who opposed the South Vietnamese Government; but
not Viet Cong). He would blame the killings on the Viet Cong and get
two for one!
David Walters
Mar 27, 2013, 11:02:48 AM3/27/13
to
The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory"
means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to
*completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make
the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to
resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national
dismemberment, etc etc.
Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one
Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non-
argument.
It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would
of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his
interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as
it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are
fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.''
The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, (12 in
one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. The
stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out
of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns
toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs
and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. The U.S.
blinked, ended the bombing, then the US mercenary army in the South
got it's ass kicked by the NVA in a brilliant coordinated, provincial
campaign (starting with An Loc west of Saigon). This is the definition
of a "military loss". YOU LOSE BY GIVING UP. Wanna guess who gave up?
David
means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to
*completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make
the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to
resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national
dismemberment, etc etc.
Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one
Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non-
argument.
It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would
of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his
interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as
it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are
fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.''
The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52, (12 in
one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. The
stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out
of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns
toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs
and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair. The U.S.
blinked, ended the bombing, then the US mercenary army in the South
got it's ass kicked by the NVA in a brilliant coordinated, provincial
campaign (starting with An Loc west of Saigon). This is the definition
of a "military loss". YOU LOSE BY GIVING UP. Wanna guess who gave up?
David
Planet Visitor II
Mar 27, 2013, 1:21:45 PM3/27/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory"
>means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to
>*completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make
>the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to
>resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national
>dismemberment, etc etc.
>
>Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one
>Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non-
>argument.
Umm... The non-argument is that Hitler was even alive to "explain"
>The person posting this doesn't even know what a "military victory"
>means. It is, in the final analysis, the ability of one side to
>*completely overwhelm* the opponent OR to force the opponent to make
>the *political* choice that the loses are to great to continue do to
>resources (both military and human), capital destruction, national
>dismemberment, etc etc.
>
>Basically the argument that the US did "not lose" is the same one
>Hitler used to explain Germany's defeat at the end of WWI. It's a non-
>argument.
Germany's defeat at the end of WW II.
30 April 1945 -- Hitler commits suicide in Berlin bunker.
7 May 1945 -- 02:41 Germany signs instrument of surrender in Reims, France.
8 May 1945 -- 23:01 All forces under German control cease active operations.
>It is true that had the US continued the bombing the Vietnamese would
>of been forced to the table once again. General Giap notes this in his
>interviews on the Christmas Bombings (while Nixon was in Beijing, as
>it happens) But wars are not fought as "what ifs". That is they are
>fought "as is". The US *was militarily defeated* by Vietnam.''
the U.S. did not lose militarily. It's like asking a Muslim if he believes
in Allah.
>The US was *militarily defeated* because it's loses of B-52,
as slanted since you're not an American.
>(12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no
>effect.
we lose WW II because of those losses?
Thye question to really ask is how many B-52s managed to complete
their mission and destroy North Vietnam? In fact, on 29 September,
1972, after all U.S. ground combat forces had already left South Vietnam,
a heavy U.S. air strike destroyed 10% of all of North Vietnam's Air
Force in one single day.
>The stupid Air Force generals, meeting such little resistance coming out
>of Thai air bases, were *stupid* to keep flying the same patterns
>toward Hanoi. So the Vietnamese simply "lined up their remaining" SAMs
>and shot them down like using a .22 at a county fair.
>The U.S. blinked, ended the bombing, then the US mercenary army in the South
>got it's ass kicked by the NVA in a brilliant coordinated, provincial
>campaign (starting with An Loc west of Saigon).
That occurred on 23 August, 1972, as the last U.S. ground combat forces left
Vietnam, leaving "only" 16,000 non-combat military advisors and administrators.
A few days later, on 16 September, South Vietnam military recaptured Quang
Tri. Significant South Vietnam military defeats began only after U.S. combat
forces had all departed.
In point of fact, even after the last U.S. ground forces had left Vietnam, a U.S.
Air Force operation called Linebacker I ended any chance of Giap claiming victory,
since he admitted failure, and had suffered an estimated 100,000 military NVA
casualties and half of all her tanks and artillery. Giap was then ousted and
replaced by his deputy, General Dung (appropriately named).
Operation Linebacker II, ended in December, 1972, and within five days North
Vietnam rushed back to resume peace negotiations. The fact that 15 of the
121 B-52s were shot down during Linebacker II is hardly relevant given the
success of Linebacker II. In fact, all U.S. combat operations had ceased
at the signing of the Peace accords, without any significant defeat of U.S.
combat forces in Vietnam. Just how many bombs did North Vietnam drop
on the U.S.??
>This is the definition
>of a "military loss". YOU LOSE BY GIVING UP. Wanna guess who gave up?
have gladly gone on killing for as long as it took. Obviously you were not
even born before the end of that war, and never really read the daily
reporting of that war when it was happening.
As it has been pointed out, the very last combat U.S. military force departed
Vietnam on 23 August, 1972. The overrun of South Vietnam by NVA forces
didn't take place until 30 April, 1975, which is more than 2 and a half years
later. North Vietnam simply ignored the terms of the peace accord and
began the final offensive invasion of South Vietnam on 10 March, 1975. The
U.S. political leaders from President Ford on down, had already decided the
U.S. would not violate that peace accord in a press conference on 21 January,
1975. This assured North Vietnam that there would be no U.S. action taken
in response to any North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam. Given that
all U.S. military combat operations had ceased more than 2 and a half years
earlier, when there presumably WAS NO WAR, as a result of the signing of
that peace accord, and no U.S. military forces ever confronted the violation
of that peace accord by North Vietnam, how is it possible that the U.S.
military _lost the war_?
Planet Visitor II
>David
chatnoir
Mar 27, 2013, 2:39:39 PM3/27/13
to
On Mar 27, 11:21 am, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
Proof:
http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm
excerpt:
There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were
to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in
single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in
exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing
between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each
aircraft within the cells (15 seconds).
A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then-
Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning
flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same
route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked
very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator
Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U-
Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air
defenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came
within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our
precise altitude, spacing and approach route…."
Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an
Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty
of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was
brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not
degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and
Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded.
Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right
after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release
procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as
pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability
against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no
harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only
were critical electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus
jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120-
knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed
reduction of nearly 250 knots.
Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain
Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions,
could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he
asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being
done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail
formations are used for ease of planning."
"Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along
with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of
tracking and shootdown!"
U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sullivan, who
was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar
lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening
to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so
far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after
the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder
point."
Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews
still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available
(Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54
B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in
three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark,
the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP
and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for
the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the
attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy
and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in
support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. ....
http://www.historynet.com/the-11-day-war.htm
excerpt:
There was worse news—the attack tactics themselves. All bombers were
to depart from the same initial point (IP), make the same bomb run in
single-file formation, fly exactly the same airspeeds, operate in
exactly the same altitude blocks and maintain exactly the same spacing
between each of the three-ship cells (one minute) and between each
aircraft within the cells (15 seconds).
A B-52 copilot who flew Linebacker II sorties from Andersen, then-
Captain Don Craig, wrote me that "We knew there were big planning
flaws, starting with the long lines of bombers coming in the same
route…and it was straight down Thud Ridge, for God's sake….It looked
very much like ducks in a shooting gallery." B-52 radar navigator
Captain Wilton Strickland, operating from the other B-52 base, at U-
Tapao airfield in Thailand, concurred: "[The spacing] gave enemy air
defenses plenty of time to track and fire on each aircraft as it came
within range….Long before we entered the target area, they knew our
precise altitude, spacing and approach route…."
Another concern was the bomb run no-evasion order issued by an
Andersen wing commander (apparently on his own authority, on penalty
of court-martial), despite previous evidence that if the B-52 was
brought back straight and level prior to release, accuracy was not
degraded. After aircrews repeatedly ignored the order on Days One and
Two, without affecting bombing results, it was quietly rescinded.
Most egregious, SAC planners mandated a "combat break" to the right
after bomb release (post-target turn, or PTT), a nuclear-release
procedure carried over into Arc Light (where it had been just as
pointless; the PTT was designed solely for better survivability
against a nuclear blast). During Arc Light, the PTT had rendered no
harm. Over heavily defended Hanoi, however, it turned lethal. Not only
were critical electronic countermeasures degraded, the 120-knot-plus
jet stream tailwind that B-52s enjoyed on the bomb run became a 120-
knot-plus headwind after the turn, resulting in a combined groundspeed
reduction of nearly 250 knots.
Later, during the Day Two pre-mission briefing, a disgusted Captain
Strickland, who was destined to fly six of the 11 Linebacker missions,
could no longer keep silent: "Who is planning such stupid tactics," he
asked the briefers, "and why?" Their response: "The planning is being
done at Omaha's SAC HQ, and the common routes, altitudes and trail
formations are used for ease of planning."
"Well," Strickland shot back, "the enemy is using your plan, along
with the after-release turn and our slow withdrawal, for ease of
tracking and shootdown!"
U-Tapao's 17th Air Division commander, Brig. Gen. Glenn Sullivan, who
was present during Strickland's comments, was thinking along similar
lines. Sullivan and his wing commanders had been carefully listening
to aircrew feedback, though their requests for tactics changes had so
far fallen on deaf ears. Sullivan was most upset about the PTT; after
the battle he wrote a friend, "The post-target turn was the murder
point."
Nevertheless, good tactics or bad, the 300 BUFF in-theater aircrews
still had to fly the missions in the 206 Stratofortresses available
(Andersen had 53 B-52Ds and 99 B-52Gs on station; U-Tapao had 54
B-52Ds). On Day One, 129 B-52s launched from Andersen and U-Tapao in
three massive waves spaced at four-hour intervals. Shortly after dark,
the first wave (33 B-52Ds and 15 B-52Gs) arrived at their Laotian IP
and wheeled southeast toward seven Hanoi targets—setting the stage for
the biggest air battle since World War II. Although the BUFFs were the
attack's centerpiece, more than 100 additional U.S. Air Force, Navy
and Marine recon, radar jammer and fighter-bomber aircraft flew in
support of the heavies or delivered their own assigned blows. ....
Planet Visitor II
Mar 28, 2013, 12:14:33 AM3/28/13
to
pointed out, the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 aircraft each and every day of
WW II, and I don't recall anyone claiming the U.S. lost that war.
In the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing mission in WW II, the U.S. lost
SIXTY B-17s in one single mission, only to fly a second mission losing
ANOTHER SIXTY B-17s, with another 17 being too damaged to return
to flying, and were scrapped, with yet another 161 having various
degrees of battle damage. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which
took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously),
and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. 178 B-24
aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." 53
aircraft were lost of those 178. See --
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm
Then we have the battle of Midway in which virtually all U.S. aircraft were
destroyed in the first few waves they were used to attack. But the
Japanese were caught flat-footed during aircraft carrier refueling operations
and Midway turned into an ugly defeat of Yamamoto's naval fleet in
subsequent attacks.
Guess who won that war? It cannot be said about Vietnam that "victory"
consisted of _winning one particular battle_, even when there was certainly
no "victory" by North Vietnam in Linebacker II.
or how they feel they were shafted into taken part in an action they
learned to later hate since Achilles slew Hector. What's new about
that??
None of that disputes the fact that U.S. Air Power continued well after
all U.S. combat forces had been removed from Vietnam. Thus it is hardly
possible that the loss of a number of B-52s means the U.S. military
"lost the war in Vietnam." Since there were no U.S. military boots on
the ground to lose that war. And it is a fact that North Vietnam violated
the terms they had agreed to in the peace accords. It is also a fact that
Linebacker II brought North Vietnam hastily back to the peace table that they
had so confidently decided to leave. Further it was the political arm of
the U.S. rather than the military that gave the military only 72 hours to
launch Linebacker II, hardly sufficient time to adequately prepare for
a major air assault on what was known to be a well-defended target.
And these losses only happened during the third wave giving the NVA
the ability to anticipate the strike patterns and deploy 34 SAMs into
the target area. In the first wave 129 bombers were sent, and 3 were
shot down. In the second wave 93 bombers were used, and although
20 SAMs were launched, not one B-52 was shot down. In that fatal
third wave, 99 bombers were launched and seven more B-52s were
shot down. Hardly a "defeat," in terms of targets destroyed, when
compared to the loss of aircraft the U.S. sustained in various bombing
runs during WW II.
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
Mar 28, 2013, 8:40:50 AM3/28/13
to
On Mar 27, 10:14 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> degrees of battle damage. See --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Raid_on_Schweinfurt
talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they
could easily be shot down!
>
> Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which
> took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously),
> and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. 178 B-24
> aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." 53
> aircraft were lost of those 178. See --http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm
> Then we have the ill-fated raid on the Ploiesti oil fields of Romania, which
> took place on 1 August, 1943, in which five Medals of Honor (3 posthumously),
> and numerous DSCs were awarded to pilots on a single day. 178 B-24
> aircraft flew into a fiery hell that would be called "Black Sunday." 53
> Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who was talking about defeat, which I view as irrelevant, the line of
> - Show quoted text -
talk was about B-52s lining up to come into bombing Hanoi so that they
could easily be shot down!
Planet Visitor II
Mar 28, 2013, 9:58:37 AM3/28/13
to
from the original poster that "The US was *militarily defeated* because it's
loses of B-52." The loss of those B-52s in Linebacker II did not signal a
"military defeat" for the U.S. military in Vietnam. I was certainly not questioning
or attempting to deny that loss; but insisting that the loss itself did not
represent the *military defeat" of the U.S. in Vietnam. No war is fought
without some tactical or strategic mistake being made. Certainly the Viet
Cong and the NVA made their share of tactical and strategic mistakes,
as shown by the much greater number who died than the 58,000 plus
U.S. military deaths.
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
Mar 28, 2013, 10:11:17 AM3/28/13
to
On Mar 28, 7:58 am, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
They did not have massive numbers of Jets, ships and bombers. They
did not have the mobilbity and fire power of the US = of course they
suffered higher number of dead!
did not have the mobilbity and fire power of the US = of course they
suffered higher number of dead!
:ПеаБраин
Mar 28, 2013, 10:28:23 AM3/28/13
to
"Our purpose is, through a
progression of all-out attacks, to cause many U.S. casualties and so
erode the U.S. will that the antiwar influences will gain decisive
political strength," said Pham Van Dong, former prime minister of
North Vietnam. Moreover, Ho Chi Minh famously predicted, "For
everyone
of yours we kill, you will kill 10 of ours. But in the end, it is you
who will grow tired."
See www.vietnam.war.info/casualties and you will learn that Ho Chi
Minh figures of 10 Vietnamese casualties would be needed to effect a
single US casualty was grossly conservative in accordance with figues
estimated by the North Vietnamese themselves after the conflict.
Since the US tragically experienced 58000 combat casualties, their
Vietnamese combatants experienced in excess of 1,000,000 combat
casualties in the process to inflict those US Army combat casualties.
In other words it took more than 17 Vietnamese combatant casualties
to
effect a single US casualty in accordance with the link estimating
combat casualties for both sides of the conflict.
Anyone construing those figures to spin that America got its "arsed
kicked in Vietnam" is either living in a mythological fantasy world
or
is desperately in need of a course in remedial arithmetic.
progression of all-out attacks, to cause many U.S. casualties and so
erode the U.S. will that the antiwar influences will gain decisive
political strength," said Pham Van Dong, former prime minister of
North Vietnam. Moreover, Ho Chi Minh famously predicted, "For
everyone
of yours we kill, you will kill 10 of ours. But in the end, it is you
who will grow tired."
See www.vietnam.war.info/casualties and you will learn that Ho Chi
Minh figures of 10 Vietnamese casualties would be needed to effect a
single US casualty was grossly conservative in accordance with figues
estimated by the North Vietnamese themselves after the conflict.
Since the US tragically experienced 58000 combat casualties, their
Vietnamese combatants experienced in excess of 1,000,000 combat
casualties in the process to inflict those US Army combat casualties.
In other words it took more than 17 Vietnamese combatant casualties
to
effect a single US casualty in accordance with the link estimating
combat casualties for both sides of the conflict.
Anyone construing those figures to spin that America got its "arsed
kicked in Vietnam" is either living in a mythological fantasy world
or
is desperately in need of a course in remedial arithmetic.
Planet Visitor II
Mar 28, 2013, 10:31:58 AM3/28/13
to
Planet Visitor II
David Walters
Mar 28, 2013, 1:23:43 PM3/28/13
to
The problem is that there is rarely a pure military victory. I was
quite alive during this period and watch, as *an American* seeing the
US getting it's ass kicked. The Vietnam War was fought like all wars
as enxtension of politics. And like all "victories" and "defeats" the
military actions have political consequences. The US lost 10 times the
number of troops during WWII. It losts hundred of more planes. Yet the
US, and ONLY because of Russian RED ARMY involvement, was able to
participate in an Allied victory in that war.
[I base point about the brilliant General Giap on an interview he gave
for a Military Channel series on Vietnam]
As 10s of thousands of GIs were killed with 6 times that number
injured (or more) the *politics* of this war, without clear
*political* goals, go the American people pissed off enough to make it
impossible for the US to win...militarily.
The goal for Vietnam was to liberate their country from US *military*
occupation.
The Vietnamese WON (thank the gods).
David
quite alive during this period and watch, as *an American* seeing the
US getting it's ass kicked. The Vietnam War was fought like all wars
as enxtension of politics. And like all "victories" and "defeats" the
military actions have political consequences. The US lost 10 times the
number of troops during WWII. It losts hundred of more planes. Yet the
US, and ONLY because of Russian RED ARMY involvement, was able to
participate in an Allied victory in that war.
[I base point about the brilliant General Giap on an interview he gave
for a Military Channel series on Vietnam]
As 10s of thousands of GIs were killed with 6 times that number
injured (or more) the *politics* of this war, without clear
*political* goals, go the American people pissed off enough to make it
impossible for the US to win...militarily.
The goal for Vietnam was to liberate their country from US *military*
occupation.
The Vietnamese WON (thank the gods).
David
dusty
Mar 28, 2013, 9:36:54 PM3/28/13
to
On Mar 27, 4:09 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
Who's the anti-American:
"If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have
simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military
being killed and we would have remained there until at least
1980. ...a society sick at our moral core"
The mass opposition to the war, already apparent in the early
seventies would have exploded had the war continued "...until at least
1980" as the body bags carrying the precious corpses were flown in in
increasing numbers and the American economy got into deeper and deeper
crisis as the costs of the war spiralled. That mass opposition of
Americans is given no credit by you at all. You prefer to blame the
war on "Americans" rather than nail the banker-capitalists as its root
cause. That makes you a fake patriotic hiding the crimes of the ruling
class.
PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the
Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought
in Vietnam.
"If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have
simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military
being killed and we would have remained there until at least
The mass opposition to the war, already apparent in the early
seventies would have exploded had the war continued "...until at least
1980" as the body bags carrying the precious corpses were flown in in
increasing numbers and the American economy got into deeper and deeper
crisis as the costs of the war spiralled. That mass opposition of
Americans is given no credit by you at all. You prefer to blame the
war on "Americans" rather than nail the banker-capitalists as its root
cause. That makes you a fake patriotic hiding the crimes of the ruling
class.
PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the
Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought
in Vietnam.
Planet Visitor II
Mar 29, 2013, 12:12:54 PM3/29/13
to
in Vietnam while you were still trying to get Susie to pull down her knickers
in the third grade. I served 20 years in the military, and can prove it. I
served the prerequisite year in Vietnam at DaNang AB, on good ol' Monkey
Mountain; I served another year in Thailand at Korat RTAB, with thuds
taking off every morning, and sometimes a few less coming back in the
evening; and I served another two years at Drake AB in Tokyo, where the
major military hospital in Japan was located, and the seriously injured military
were treated, with kids as young as 19 and 20, in wheelchairs, with clamps
on their heads so they could not move their heads because of traumatic
spinal cord injuries.
And I still have the orders and my retirement certificate from 1 April 1973 to
prove it.
>Who's the anti-American:
Well, that would be you.
>"If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have
>simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military
>being killed and we would have remained there until at least
>1980. ...a society sick at our moral core"
because I see the truth, and accept that it does not make me anti-American
to recognize the warts and all in a country I love and honor.
>The mass opposition to the war, already apparent in the early
>seventies would have exploded had the war continued "...until at least
>1980" as the body bags carrying the precious corpses were flown in in
>increasing numbers and the American economy got into deeper and deeper
>crisis as the costs of the war spiralled. That mass opposition of
>Americans is given no credit by you at all. You prefer to blame the
>war on "Americans" rather than nail the banker-capitalists as its root
>cause. That makes you a fake patriotic hiding the crimes of the ruling
>class.
system which treats humans like pawns. The problem we had with
Vietnam was our political and military leaders were filled with personal
hubris, and gave no thought to geopolitical or long-term considerations
about the far-east. The very fact that there was this deep objection from
citizens to that war, points out clearly what there is to love about the
deep-rooted morality of so many Americans. My only argument is that
we should never have even entered into that war. But once in we
certainly never LOST that war. There is not a single instance of any
document of surrender by any U.S. combat force in any engagement
against the Viet Cong or the NVA. Nor would any such instance show
that the U.S. military LOST the war in Vietnam, when considering the
numerous defeats of the Viet Cong and the NVA in various military
engagements.
>PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the
>Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought
>in Vietnam.
who were not. Are you claiming that Australians who fought in Vietnam
felt they were outfought by the Viet Cong, and they admit that the Viet
Cong were better fighters man-for-man, than they were?
The argument is a claim that the U.S. military, with all it's military might
LOST the military war in Vietnam. And that argument is a total crock of
shit! The Viet Cong admitted that the most frightening part of that war
was the B-52, and the fact that they could be walking through the jungle
and suddenly find the ground around them exploding with ordnance from
the sky. Unannounced, and with no place to hide. How many B-52s did
the Viet Cong or the NVA have?
During the course of that war how many bombings did North Vietnam
receive from the U.S. Air Force? During the course of that war how many
bombings did the U.S. receive from the North Vietnam Air Force??
For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S.
military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a
surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A
WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the
NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon.
Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
Mar 29, 2013, 2:58:06 PM3/29/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT), David Walters <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The problem is that there is rarely a pure military victory. I was
>quite alive during this period and watch, as *an American* seeing the
>US getting it's ass kicked.
You mean in the media. I was there when 50,000 marines in Da Nang
>The problem is that there is rarely a pure military victory. I was
>quite alive during this period and watch, as *an American* seeing the
>US getting it's ass kicked.
were whipping the shit out of the VC before breakfast, and then eating
them for lunch. Then in the evening listening to Edwin Starr and his
record "War.... who needs it," while smoking a joint. And there is no
group of humans that I respect and admire more than those marines.
Do you really think the media was disposed to favorably support the U.S.
military in Vietnam?? The on-again, off-again bombing strategy of Johnson
only helped North Vietnam time to recover, and time to enhance their air
defenses, which remained inadequate in spite of mounting U.S. losses.
But there never was an air strike which could be argued did less damage to
North Vietnam than it did to the Air Force aircraft which were involved in
that strike.
Not just B-52s, F-105s, A1s, A4s, A6s, and A7s... but helicopters, such as
"the Jolly Green Giant," played a major role in that war, while North Vietnam
and the Viet Cong did not have an "air force." Helicopters were a spectacular
success in operations such as the 1965 la Drang campaign, the relief of
Khe Sanh, and moving the 1st Cav almost immediately during Operation
Liberty Canyon.
Then beginning with Linebacker I and Linebacker II, North Vietnam learned
that when we decided to employ air power against North Vietnam without
so many restrictions they should decide to end the war against the U.S.
It's relatively clear in any historical perspective, that if they had refused to
make that decision, Nixon would have simply upped the use of that air power,
regardless of any losses. Nixon was not the type of person to consider
losses if a strategic gain could be realized.
This is not to argue that what we did has any _moral significance_.
Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. What it does argue and prove is
that the U.S. MILITARY did not lose the war in Vietnam.
>The Vietnam War was fought like all wars
>as enxtension of politics. And like all "victories" and "defeats" the
>military actions have political consequences.
but that. If an army is equipped to totally overrun an enemy in 24
hours without the loss of a single soldier, and the political arm
decides to not employ that force and simply agrees to the terms set
by the other party (as was somewhat the case in Munich with
Chamberlain in WW II), it can hardly be argued that this agreement
having political consequences meant a MILITARY LOSS by the party
to such an agreement. In that particular case the military loss came
in Dunkirk, but that same military was still the victor in the final outcome
of that war.
So one might argue just the opposite of what you insist... that political
consequences can result in military loss. But it is the military that
must lose the battle, since they are the ones placed in harm's way.
Not Bankers, or Socialists, or Capitalists, or Democrats, or Republicans,
or what-have-you. Military losses are suffered by the Military alone.
The U.S. suffered no such loss in Vietnam. Those are the facts.
> The US lost 10 times the
>number of troops during WWII. It losts hundred of more planes. Yet the
>US, and ONLY because of Russian RED ARMY involvement, was able to
>participate in an Allied victory in that war.
enjoys the belief that you are not only prescient, but able to fashion
the future as you would want it.
>[I base point about the brilliant General Giap on an interview he gave
>for a Military Channel series on Vietnam]
>As 10s of thousands of GIs were killed with 6 times that number
>injured (or more) the *politics* of this war, without clear
>*political* goals, go the American people pissed off enough to make it
>impossible for the US to win...militarily.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. military had the
capacity to level North Vietnam to a parking lot. The fact that this
did not happen was because of a POLITICAL decision not to apply
the military to its full capacity.
>The goal for Vietnam was to liberate their country from US *military*
>occupation.
shown by the fact that Saigon is no longer "Saigon," but "Ho Chi Minh"
city. The goal for South Vietnam never was "democracy." Most of
those who were for "democracy" now live in the U.S.
>The Vietnamese WON (thank the gods).
When entering a vacuum devoid of military resolve it is obvious what
will result. So big deal. When our military was there not one inch of
South Vietnam had been "conquered" by North Vietnam. And as long
as we had stayed there it is hard to imagine that this would have ever
changed.
I personally feel that "Morally" we should never have entered
into any war in Vietnam. Much of our going in can be attributed to
France, and her belief that the U.S. could be a champion working for
French interests in the far-east. Then "the domino effect" became
the political bobble-head theme. But the idea that the U.S. MILITARY
lost that war???!!! Utter and total anti-American bullshit.
Planet Visitor II
>David
Poetic Justice
Mar 29, 2013, 4:37:30 PM3/29/13
to
Planet Visitor II wrote;
>Do you really think the media was
>disposed to favorably support the U.S.
>military in Vietnam??
I think they did a wonderful job along with the Anti-War Movement and
Jane Fonda.
Or did *you* have a better plan for *prolonging* the War?
And I suppose *you* would have thought it wonderful to be able to credit
that crook Nixon with ending LBJ's War in his 1st term rather than a
couple of weeks into his 2nd term with a higher death and causality rate
on both sides?
I think it is sad that people like *you* back then and even today never
gives them credit for all they accomplished without *your* support and
help!!!
Regards (with tongue in cheek:-), Walter
----------------------------------------
North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin. In a
postwar interview with The Wall Street Journal reproduced at length in
'Aid and Comfort', the Colonel, a dedicated Communist cadre for most
of his life, confidant of Ho Chi Minh and the architect of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail along which the North Vietnamese conducted their
aggression against the South, and also one of the first officers of
their army to enter Saigon on the day it fell, had this to say:
Wall Street Journal: Was the American antiwar movement important to
Hanoi's victory?
Colonel Bui Tin: "It was ESSENTIAL to our strategy. Support for
the war from our rear [China] was completely secure while the American
rear was vulnerable.
Every day our leadership would listen to world NEWS over the radio at 9
a.m. to follow the growth of the AMERICAN ANTIWAR MOVEMENT.
Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda . . .GAVE US CONFIDENCE THAT
WE SHOULD HOLD ON IN THE FACE OF BATTLEFIELD REVERSES."
[And the Brilliant General Giap mentioned earlier agreed]
"The identical point was made by North Vietnamese Defense Minister
General Vo Nguyen GIAP, the architect of France's defeat at Dien Bien
Phu. This was the man most responsible for the Communists military
strategy in their war with the United States."
>Do you really think the media was
>disposed to favorably support the U.S.
>military in Vietnam??
Jane Fonda.
Or did *you* have a better plan for *prolonging* the War?
And I suppose *you* would have thought it wonderful to be able to credit
that crook Nixon with ending LBJ's War in his 1st term rather than a
couple of weeks into his 2nd term with a higher death and causality rate
on both sides?
I think it is sad that people like *you* back then and even today never
gives them credit for all they accomplished without *your* support and
help!!!
Regards (with tongue in cheek:-), Walter
----------------------------------------
North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin. In a
postwar interview with The Wall Street Journal reproduced at length in
'Aid and Comfort', the Colonel, a dedicated Communist cadre for most
of his life, confidant of Ho Chi Minh and the architect of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail along which the North Vietnamese conducted their
aggression against the South, and also one of the first officers of
their army to enter Saigon on the day it fell, had this to say:
Wall Street Journal: Was the American antiwar movement important to
Hanoi's victory?
Colonel Bui Tin: "It was ESSENTIAL to our strategy. Support for
the war from our rear [China] was completely secure while the American
rear was vulnerable.
Every day our leadership would listen to world NEWS over the radio at 9
a.m. to follow the growth of the AMERICAN ANTIWAR MOVEMENT.
Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda . . .GAVE US CONFIDENCE THAT
WE SHOULD HOLD ON IN THE FACE OF BATTLEFIELD REVERSES."
[And the Brilliant General Giap mentioned earlier agreed]
"The identical point was made by North Vietnamese Defense Minister
General Vo Nguyen GIAP, the architect of France's defeat at Dien Bien
Phu. This was the man most responsible for the Communists military
strategy in their war with the United States."
David Walters
Mar 29, 2013, 5:21:02 PM3/29/13
to
"aggression against the South"...HAHAHAHA. Attend any Confederate
reenactments of late?
What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic Justice don't get is that in
their attempt to re-fight the Vietnam war, they want to hold high the
'honor' of the US military. This is a joke. No military fights
exclusively as a gun-and-ammo war. The US attempted...actually the US
MILITARY attempted to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Vietnamese
living in the south...AND in this they FAILED, and did so miserably.
The US Military attempted to stomp out the Vietnamese Resistance to
the occupation fo their country and they FAILED.
The US Military attempted to WIN...and they FAILED. What part of
FAILURE don't you understand.
The Military is part and parcel of the overall state structure of the
U.S. that attempted, as a system of political economy, to turn Vietnam
into a colony. That the US Air Force was vastly superior to the
Vietnamese is has absolutely no importance in the way the Vietnamese
*fought* the occupation of their country. Giap, et al simply
understood this better than William Westmoreland, C. LeMay and LBJ.
In the overall battle the Vietnamese won. This means that all
components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
Again.
The U.S. movement was critical to the victory of the Vietnamese though
there was never any actual connection of significance to this. It was
wishful thinking on the part of the Vietnamese gov't that if they
killed enough GIs, downed enough planes, caused the draft of millions
of youth, that the US would blink. Their wishful thinking was part of
this.
I was proud of the Vietnamese gov't defeating my own gov't here in the
U.S. I was only 17 when the Vietnamese liberated what became Ho Chi
Mihn City. I had a cork map of Vietnam and during the offensives,
despite massive bombings by the US in the south of their country, one
by one, each provincial capital fell to the liberation forces.
Just as I would be proud of the White Rose organization had I been a
German youth during WWII fighting for my own gov'ts defeat.
The real cause of the defeat of the US military in Vietnam was the
inability of people like those on this list who grovel in their own
form of self-pity in a vat of blind, know-nothing "patriotism". The
only patriots in this whole conflict where the Vietnamese youth,
workers and peasants who fought the US to a *standstill* and came out
victorious.
reenactments of late?
What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic Justice don't get is that in
their attempt to re-fight the Vietnam war, they want to hold high the
'honor' of the US military. This is a joke. No military fights
exclusively as a gun-and-ammo war. The US attempted...actually the US
MILITARY attempted to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Vietnamese
living in the south...AND in this they FAILED, and did so miserably.
The US Military attempted to stomp out the Vietnamese Resistance to
the occupation fo their country and they FAILED.
The US Military attempted to WIN...and they FAILED. What part of
FAILURE don't you understand.
The Military is part and parcel of the overall state structure of the
U.S. that attempted, as a system of political economy, to turn Vietnam
into a colony. That the US Air Force was vastly superior to the
Vietnamese is has absolutely no importance in the way the Vietnamese
*fought* the occupation of their country. Giap, et al simply
understood this better than William Westmoreland, C. LeMay and LBJ.
In the overall battle the Vietnamese won. This means that all
components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
Again.
The U.S. movement was critical to the victory of the Vietnamese though
there was never any actual connection of significance to this. It was
wishful thinking on the part of the Vietnamese gov't that if they
killed enough GIs, downed enough planes, caused the draft of millions
of youth, that the US would blink. Their wishful thinking was part of
this.
I was proud of the Vietnamese gov't defeating my own gov't here in the
U.S. I was only 17 when the Vietnamese liberated what became Ho Chi
Mihn City. I had a cork map of Vietnam and during the offensives,
despite massive bombings by the US in the south of their country, one
by one, each provincial capital fell to the liberation forces.
Just as I would be proud of the White Rose organization had I been a
German youth during WWII fighting for my own gov'ts defeat.
The real cause of the defeat of the US military in Vietnam was the
inability of people like those on this list who grovel in their own
form of self-pity in a vat of blind, know-nothing "patriotism". The
only patriots in this whole conflict where the Vietnamese youth,
workers and peasants who fought the US to a *standstill* and came out
victorious.
Planet Visitor II
Mar 30, 2013, 1:10:31 AM3/30/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:21:02 -0700 (PDT), David Walters <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"aggression against the South"...HAHAHAHA. Attend any Confederate
>reenactments of late?
Yeah... I fought for the Union. They are called "Civil War Reenactments,"
>"aggression against the South"...HAHAHAHA. Attend any Confederate
>reenactments of late?
not "Confederate Reenactments." But how have those meetings you attend
with Stormfront been going for you?
>What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic Justice don't get is that in
>their attempt to re-fight the Vietnam war, they want to hold high the
>'honor' of the US military. This is a joke.
U.S. military had any "honor" in the Vietnam War. It is enough to argue
FACTS rather than "moralist" views, since morality is in the eyes of
the beholder. If the U.S. military did not lose the war that has nothing
to do with "honor," but with facts. It is absurd to argue that the U.S.
MILITARY lost the war, given that military had the capacity to turn
North Vietnam into a parking lot.
"Honor" and "Dishonor," are subjective terms, since the Viet Cong thought
it was "Honor" to use the methods portrayed in "The Deer Hunter," against
American military they captured. In any case, a philosophical question for
you -- Is it better to win with dishonor, or to lose with honor??? What if
losing with honor brings slavery to every person that military fought for?
What if losing with honor means death??
>No military fights exclusively as a gun-and-ammo war.
Ho Chi Minh trail was superior to the U.S. military material supply line
and the material brought to the U.S. soldier in the field!! You're dreaming,
sonny. You never saw Cam Ranh Bay, when the U.S. military used it to unload
material used for that war.
>The US attempted...actually the US
>MILITARY attempted to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Vietnamese
>living in the south...AND in this they FAILED, and did so miserably.
role is to fight and win, and that's been the role of EVERY military.
Killing a person when not at war is considered homicide, and often
considered murder under certain circumstances. Killing a person when
at war is usually considered heroism with extreme honor. Who are you
to claim you know better than some others? Are you the presumptive
infallible Pope??
>The US Military attempted to stomp out the Vietnamese Resistance to
>the occupation fo their country and they FAILED.
the signing of the Paris Peace Accord between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.
That accord provided for a permanent end to the fighting between North
and South Vietnam. It was signed by North Vietnam, South Vietnam,
and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The fact
that 2 and 1/2 years later, North Vietnam violated the terms of the very
agreement they were a party to does not make the U.S. military losers...
but does make the North Vietnamese guilty of violating a treaty they
were a party to. Where is the "honor" with THAT??
But gee... so did Hitler when he invaded Russia, so what's new?
If you wish to argue that the U.S. military lost the war because our
civilian leaders would no longer commit U.S. military after 2 and 1/2
years, I can argue that the French, the Germans, the Italians, the
Russians, and the Chinese MILITARY lost the war, since THEY didn't
commit their military forces to stop North Vietnam's violation of their
own peace accord. With the signing of that peace accord the U.S.
military had as little further obligation to defend South Vietnam as
did those other nations. How can you possibly have a military that
can lose a war, when there is NO military to lose it?
>The US Military attempted to WIN...and they FAILED.
No proof offered. Your claim fails.
> What part of FAILURE don't you understand.
Was that a question?? What part of a peace accord, and 2 and a 1/2 years
later don't you understand?
>The Military is part and parcel of the overall state structure of the
>U.S. that attempted, as a system of political economy, to turn Vietnam
>into a colony.
into a colony. The only nations that attempted to turn Vietnam into
a "colony" were FRANCE and JAPAN. Learn your history.
>That the US Air Force was vastly superior to the
>Vietnamese is has absolutely no importance in the way the Vietnamese
>*fought* the occupation of their country. Giap, et al simply
>understood this better than William Westmoreland, C. LeMay and LBJ.
No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>In the overall battle the Vietnamese won. This means that all
>components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
>Again.
No proof offered. Your claim fails. But you have started to squawk a
>components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
>Again.
little bit like a chicken.
>The U.S. movement was critical to the victory of the Vietnamese though
>there was never any actual connection of significance to this. It was
>wishful thinking on the part of the Vietnamese gov't that if they
>killed enough GIs, downed enough planes, caused the draft of millions
>of youth, that the US would blink. Their wishful thinking was part of
>this.
No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>I was proud of the Vietnamese gov't
You sound a bit like the Viet Cong.
>defeating my own gov't here in the U.S.
silly childish head. Just how many bombs did North Vietnam drop on
New York City??? Or Los Angeles?
>I was only 17
And still trying to get Susie to drop her knickers for you. What a
loser.
>when the Vietnamese liberated what became Ho Chi Mihn City.
a _great victory_ when the enemy isn't there!! You really believe that
North Vietnam signed that peace treaty because they had the U.S.
military on the run. ROTFLMAO. Three men and a large dog could
have overrun South Vietnam 2 and 1/2 years AFTER every U.S. combat
military had departed Vietnam. Remember all those helicopters that
were thrown off of aircraft carriers when South Vietnam was overrun,
that the media managed to cover over and over? They were not ours...
they belonged to the South Vietnamese Army and Air Force, and we
would have never seen them again in any case. Except for the fact that
the VIETNAMESE used them to escape from the conquering hordes of
North Vietnamese taking revenge on South Vietnamese who did not
fall on their knees in prayer before the "conquering" North Vietnamese.
Tell me about "honor." If all the Vietnamese had welcomed the North
Vietnamese why was there such a crowd in front of the U.S. embassy?
The North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam was followed by a
blood bath.... but then that's what you see as "honor."
Here's food for thought about that blood bath, which was delayed a
bit immediately after the conquest until the media found Vietnam not
that interesting any longer. See --
http://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When_we_knew_what_happened_in_Vietnam.htm
Quote -- "THE BLOODBATH is motivated not so much by hatred or
revenge as by the necessity for the Communist system to purge itself
of undesirable elements From a Marxist viewpoint political purge is a
necessity in order to achieve political purity, a precondition to the
building of socialism. Political purity ensures single mindedness, which
in turn achieves high efficiency. The Vietnamese Communists, as they
showed in their conduct of the war, are doctrinaire single minded,
efficient. But not until all Vietnamese—men, women, and children think
the Communist way will political purity be achieved for the new nation
as a whole. This is why indoctrination “re-education” as they call it—is
of prime importance. For those who are too old or too stubborn to
change elimination is the only alternative."
Unquote.
So what brought about that bloodbath... he says it was _good ol' Socialism_.
>I had a cork map of Vietnam and during the offensives,
>despite massive bombings by the US in the south of their country, one
>by one, each provincial capital fell to the liberation forces.
case, you did no such thing, since no U.S. military bombing took place
in North or South Vietnam following the Paris Peace Accord. The U.S.
combat role did not EXIST! The violation of that Peace Accord was
strictly a decision made by North Vietnam (which you consider "with
honor," no doubt). At no time during the invasion of South Vietnam
by North Vietnam did the U.S. military take any combat role, on the
ground or in the air. I think you're actually a 17-year-old, leaving a
life of fantasy, since you're certainly lying in this particular comment
of yours.
>Just as I would be proud of the White Rose organization had I been a
>German youth during WWII fighting for my own gov'ts defeat.
>The real cause of the defeat of the US military in Vietnam was the
>inability of people like those on this list who grovel in their own
>form of self-pity in a vat of blind, know-nothing "patriotism". The
>only patriots in this whole conflict where the Vietnamese youth,
>workers and peasants who fought the US to a *standstill* and came out
>victorious.
comment. It doesn't seem like you've progressed intellectually since
that hobby you had with the corks. You certainly have a very loose
grasp of English, considering you use the word "where" when the
word "were," is appropriate. Giving two entirely different meanings
to your comment above, you silly child.
Happy to Help.
Planet Visitor II
Poetic Justice
Mar 30, 2013, 11:53:18 AM3/30/13
to
David Walters wrote;
>What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic
>Justice don't get is that in their attempt to
>re-fight the Vietnam war,
And what you "don't get" is your attempt to re-live the anti-war Hippie
days that you were too young to be a part of.
You turn 55 this year, tell me when was the last time you heard anyone
in person use those Hippie-era terms that you have brought back from the
60's-early 70's?
>"liberate their country" "US *military*
>occupation" "US mercenary army"
>"Vietnamese Resistance" "occupation fo
>their country" "turn Vietnam into a colony"
>"US Imperialist" "liberation forces" "The
playing Communists until they go out into the corporate world?
I haven't heard those BS quotes since my high school friends and I would
go to the nearby Ivy League University for outdoor concerts and anti-war
protests just to get the Hippies to buy us booze, smoke their dope and
try to bang a Hippie chick (unsuccessful but did get 2 out of the 3).
And guess where those Hippie Ivy League rich kids are today ~43yrs
later?
Well one thing is for certain they are not quoting Mao or Uncle Ho in
their corporate boardroom meetings.
Unlike you they have grown-up but you are still a 17yr old boy sticking
push-pins in a cork map.
Your grasp of history is bias by your theology (the NV Communists are
the liberators and heros in this conflict even though they broke a Peace
Treaty and *invaded* SV).
That theology has killed more innocent civilians in Genocides in the
20thC then Hitler could ever dream of.
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc.
I'm out of this with you but to paraphrase you "...the inability of
>What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic
>Justice don't get is that in their attempt to
>re-fight the Vietnam war,
days that you were too young to be a part of.
You turn 55 this year, tell me when was the last time you heard anyone
in person use those Hippie-era terms that you have brought back from the
60's-early 70's?
>"liberate their country" "US *military*
>occupation" "US mercenary army"
>"Vietnamese Resistance" "occupation fo
>their country" "turn Vietnam into a colony"
>"US Imperialist" "liberation forces" "The
>only patriots in this whole conflict where
>the Vietnamese youth, workers and
>peasants"
Not from your relatives or friends unless you have college age friends
>the Vietnamese youth, workers and
>peasants"
playing Communists until they go out into the corporate world?
I haven't heard those BS quotes since my high school friends and I would
go to the nearby Ivy League University for outdoor concerts and anti-war
protests just to get the Hippies to buy us booze, smoke their dope and
try to bang a Hippie chick (unsuccessful but did get 2 out of the 3).
And guess where those Hippie Ivy League rich kids are today ~43yrs
later?
Well one thing is for certain they are not quoting Mao or Uncle Ho in
their corporate boardroom meetings.
Unlike you they have grown-up but you are still a 17yr old boy sticking
push-pins in a cork map.
Your grasp of history is bias by your theology (the NV Communists are
the liberators and heros in this conflict even though they broke a Peace
Treaty and *invaded* SV).
That theology has killed more innocent civilians in Genocides in the
20thC then Hitler could ever dream of.
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc.
I'm out of this with you but to paraphrase you "...the inability of
people like those on this list who grovel in their own form of self-pity
in a vat of blind, know-nothing ["Idealism"] sums it up nicely.
Bill
Mar 30, 2013, 2:23:06 PM3/30/13
to
Assuming the political will to win was there, what you consider a
military victory for the USA?
An American victory parade in Hanoi seems unlikely.
Planet Visitor II
Mar 31, 2013, 9:06:23 PM3/31/13
to
capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
Vietnam. That 2 and 1/2 years AFTER the last American combat boot,
and the last air attack over South or North Vietnam by the U.S. military
had taken place, North Vietnam stabbed South Vietnam in the back is
hardly sufficient for North Vietnam to claim anything or hold a parade
for any reason.
In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
III.
Planet Visitor II
Bill
Apr 1, 2013, 7:46:53 AM4/1/13
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:06:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
here.
I remember the headlines at the time.
And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.
<na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:12:54 -0400, Planet Visitor II
>><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S.
>>>military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a
>>>surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A
>>>WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the
>>>NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon.
>>
>>In an effort to move this on from a pissing contest...
>>
>>Assuming the political will to win was there, what you consider a
>>military victory for the USA?
>>
>>An American victory parade in Hanoi seems unlikely.
>
>It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
>capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
>Vietnam.
You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:12:54 -0400, Planet Visitor II
>><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S.
>>>military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a
>>>surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A
>>>WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the
>>>NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon.
>>
>>In an effort to move this on from a pissing contest...
>>
>>Assuming the political will to win was there, what you consider a
>>military victory for the USA?
>>
>>An American victory parade in Hanoi seems unlikely.
>
>It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
>capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
>Vietnam.
here.
I remember the headlines at the time.
And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.
David Walters
Apr 1, 2013, 10:35:07 AM4/1/13
to
On Mar 31, 6:06 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
> returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
> would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
> III.
"Blinked"? Hahahaha. They knew *exactly* what they did and the fake
> In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
> returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
> would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
> III.
'blink' was the US blinking thinking it had expunged the sovereignty
of the Vietnamese people. The US could *not* defeat Vietnam militarily
but they could force them to the negotiating table. The Vietnamese
needed the extra time, and, they didn't feel any form of "Treaty" that
was being forced down their throat was at all legit, given the sheer
number of civilian deaths in the north and south of the country.
The US had zero right to negotiate a damn thing and deservedly got
booted out of Vietnam along with their puppet government. The US was
defeated politically which means that all aspects of the war there
were defeated, including the *total inability* of the US war machine
to *win*. The military *lost* as much as the political side lost, as
they were one and the same.
Dinosaur historians as you've all seen here love to argue that US
never 'lost', as if abstracting battles and engagement constitutes a
"war". War is, as Clausewitz, politics by other means. Who won?
Vietnam. Who lost? The U.S. And the world was better off for it.
David
Planet Visitor II
Apr 1, 2013, 10:37:18 AM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:06:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:12:54 -0400, Planet Visitor II
>>><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S.
>>>>military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a
>>>>surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A
>>>>WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the
>>>>NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon.
>>>
>>>In an effort to move this on from a pissing contest...
>>>
>>>Assuming the political will to win was there, what you consider a
>>>military victory for the USA?
>>>
>>>An American victory parade in Hanoi seems unlikely.
>>
>>It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
>>capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
>>Vietnam.
>
>You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>here.
Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts. After all,
>On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:06:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:12:54 -0400, Planet Visitor II
>>><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S.
>>>>military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a
>>>>surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A
>>>>WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the
>>>>NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon.
>>>
>>>In an effort to move this on from a pissing contest...
>>>
>>>Assuming the political will to win was there, what you consider a
>>>military victory for the USA?
>>>
>>>An American victory parade in Hanoi seems unlikely.
>>
>>It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
>>capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
>>Vietnam.
>
>You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>here.
they were spitting on the combat military being withdrawn from Vietnam.
>I remember the headlines at the time.
>And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
>cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
>didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.
Perhaps you should read what you consider your "sentence" again.
Since you seem a bit confused as to "who didn't get a voice at
the conference."
Let's cut to the chase. Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???
Just check the box... since everyone has an "opinion" --
Yes _________
No __________
Planet Visitor II
David Walters
Apr 1, 2013, 12:58:54 PM4/1/13
to
They had bases, air ops, special ops, etc. throughout and up to
liberation. The "Vietnamesation" of the war was the result of the
military unable to win. But the "2 1/2 years" as you put it was the
result of the DoD having a losing strategy and unable to complete it's
mission...what ever that was at any given time, but generally to keep
the south of Vietnam carved out of the Vietnamese nation. It failed to
do that.
The U.S. lost the war. We tried to dictate to another people how they
should live. We tried to divide a nation in two thinking that a German
or Korean solution was the answer. Our gov't screwed up and should of
learned the *political* lessons of the French defeat.
D.
liberation. The "Vietnamesation" of the war was the result of the
military unable to win. But the "2 1/2 years" as you put it was the
result of the DoD having a losing strategy and unable to complete it's
mission...what ever that was at any given time, but generally to keep
the south of Vietnam carved out of the Vietnamese nation. It failed to
do that.
The U.S. lost the war. We tried to dictate to another people how they
should live. We tried to divide a nation in two thinking that a German
or Korean solution was the answer. Our gov't screwed up and should of
learned the *political* lessons of the French defeat.
D.
Bill
Apr 1, 2013, 5:50:27 PM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
<na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>>here.
>
>Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.
Me, a hippy!
<na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>>here.
>
>Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.
You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?
>>I remember the headlines at the time.
>
>Ah, yes... the good ol' media. Dan Rather and Co.
>>And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
>>cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
>>didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.
>
>"Everyone"???
No exceptions...
>Let's cut to the chase. Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
>the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
>a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
>bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???
Communists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/21/newsid_2935000/2935347.stm
The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
battles.
Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...
Planet Visitor II
Apr 2, 2013, 2:00:33 AM4/2/13
to
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT), David Walters <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>They had bases, air ops, special ops, etc. throughout and up to
>liberation.
Wrong. There was only an embassy staff of military and a few
>They had bases, air ops, special ops, etc. throughout and up to
>liberation.
advisors who were not armed or engaged in any offensive act
toward the Viet Cong or North Vietnam, when North Vietnam
illegally invaded South Vietnam.
>The "Vietnamesation" of the war was the result of the
>military unable to win. But the "2 1/2 years" as you put it was the
>result of the DoD having a losing strategy and unable to complete it's
>mission...what ever that was at any given time, but generally to keep
>the south of Vietnam carved out of the Vietnamese nation. It failed to
>do that.
years; while North Vietnam recovered from Linebacker II, and rearmed
sufficiently to strike out illegally against South Vietnam. What is
interesting is that you SUPPORT illegal war. It makes it likely that
you support in historical terms the Nazi illegal invasion of Poland.
After all, if you support one illegal war, everyone can see that you
have no problem supporting illegal wars.
>The U.S. lost the war. We tried to dictate to another people how they
>should live. We tried to divide a nation in two thinking that a German
>or Korean solution was the answer. Our gov't screwed up and should of
>learned the *political* lessons of the French defeat.
with a Christian.
You spew out some rubbish that you demand be accepted as "fact from
God almighty," then draw your own conclusion and insist that the world is
flat. The 2 and a 1/2 years was a result of a SIGNED peace treaty!!
This is not an opinion, as all your comment are... this is a FACT!!
It is also a FACT that not one U.S. military combat boot had been on
the ground in South Vietnam for 2 and 1/2 years, before the ILLEGAL
invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. Those are irrefutable
FACTS, rather than your obviously biased anti-American opinion.
It takes a lot of chutzpah on your part to ignore those facts, and
develop your own separate *flat-earth* set of facts (sic).
We did not violate that peace treaty; and had North Vietnam not
invaded South Vietnam, South Vietnam *could be* as successful as
South Korea, if it ever managed to eliminate it's corrupt government.
Or do you insist that would be impossible because you think the South
Vietnamese were not as desirous in the 1970s of economic prosperity
as were the South Koreans of 1960?
After all, South Korea did it, and Syngman Rhee is a distant memory,
being removed by a PEACEFUL revolution (the April 19th Student Revolution
of 1960). Are you claiming that the South Vietnamese were ALL
corrupt, and only opposed North Vietnam's illegal invasion because
they were ALL corrupt?? Are you claiming that the South Vietnamese
could have NEVER been as successful as South Korea in ridding herself
of a corrupt government? What an insult to the South Vietnamese!!
So instead you insult the South Vietnamese and the U.S. military; while there
was not a U.S. combat boot on the ground when North Vietnam VIOLATED
the terms of the very agreement THEY were a party to and invaded
North Vietnam.
Planet Visitor II
>D.
Planet Visitor II
Apr 2, 2013, 2:19:23 AM4/2/13
to
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT), David Walters <dwalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 31, 6:06 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>> In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
>> returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
>> would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
>> III.
>
>"Blinked"? Hahahaha. They knew *exactly* what they did and the fake
>'blink' was the US blinking thinking it had expunged the sovereignty
>of the Vietnamese people.
>On Mar 31, 6:06 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>> In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
>> returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
>> would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
>> III.
>
>"Blinked"? Hahahaha. They knew *exactly* what they did and the fake
>'blink' was the US blinking thinking it had expunged the sovereignty
>of the Vietnamese people.
No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>The US could *not* defeat Vietnam militarily
You are obviously trying to refer to "North Vietnam," but the spittle
rolled off of your lower lip onto your hand over the keyboard and in
the process of wiping it away you neglected to specific which part
of Vietnam you were referring to.
In any case, your comment is all bullshit. The U.S. MILITARY had
ALREADY brought North Vietnam to her knees with Linebacker II.
>but they could force them to the negotiating table. The Vietnamese
>needed the extra time, and, they didn't feel any form of "Treaty" that
>was being forced down their throat was at all legit, given the sheer
>number of civilian deaths in the north and south of the country.
>The US had zero right to negotiate a damn thing and deservedly got
>booted out of Vietnam along with their puppet government.
negotiated with the U.S. regarding a peace treaty. The North
Vietnamese seemed to believe the U.S. had a right to negotiate,
as did the Viet Cong. Who are you to tell the North Vietnamese
what to believe??
>The US was
>defeated politically which means that all aspects of the war there
>were defeated, including the *total inability* of the US war machine
>to *win*. The military *lost* as much as the political side lost, as
>they were one and the same.
No proof offered. Your claim fails.
>Dinosaur historians as you've all seen here love to argue that US
>never 'lost', as if abstracting battles and engagement constitutes a
>"war".
Gee... a kill ratio of 10 to 1 tends to argue there was a "war," and
>never 'lost', as if abstracting battles and engagement constitutes a
>"war".
the side killing 10 to losing 1... was the winner.
>War is, as Clausewitz, politics by other means.
in Paris.
>Who won?
The question regards the claim that the U.S. MILITARY lost the
war. If it was politics, it wasn't the U.S. MILITARY. The U.S.
MILITARY is lawfully prohibited from MAKING political decisions.
They can only advise. After all, remember that Truman sacked
MacArthur.
>Vietnam.
You mean North or South??? You're babbling again.
>Who lost? The U.S. And the world was better off for it.
of Clausewitz. Was he in favor of illegal wars? Because you obviously
are! How about that Hitler invasion of Russia while there was a
"peace treaty" between the two? Support one illegal war with a
peace treaty in existence being violated... support all illegal war with
a peace treaty in existence being violated.
Planet Visitor II
>David
Planet Visitor II
Apr 2, 2013, 2:36:23 AM4/2/13
to
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>>>here.
>>
>>Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.
>
>Me, a hippy!
>
>You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?
I'm not your "boy." Apparently you were spitting on those marching in the Birmingham
>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
>>>here.
>>
>>Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts.
>
>Me, a hippy!
>
>You been smokin' some of that weed again boy?
Civil Rights protest.
>>>I remember the headlines at the time.
>>
>>Ah, yes... the good ol' media. Dan Rather and Co.
>
>Not where I live boy.
>
>>>And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
>>>cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
>>>didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.
>>
>>"Everyone"???
>
>Yes everyone.
>
>No exceptions...
with your conclusion, it is proven to be an inaccurate claim.
>>Let's cut to the chase. Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
>>the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
>>a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
>>bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???
>
>Ran away and left their allies to the mercy of the bloody handed
>Communists.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/21/newsid_2935000/2935347.stm
Nazis, and wait to reclaim Europe from the Nazis and end the
Holocaust? Let's see... Dunkirk --ended June 1940. WW II -
ended 8 May 1945. Give it a month less than FIVE YEARS. Twice
as long as it took the North Vietnamese to illegally invade South
Vietnam. Left Europe to the bloody handed Nazis for five years.
Since we're now throwing stones. Not only that... you needed
HELP from the U.S. military.
>The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
>battles.
MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
to the wording of that claim.
>Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...
political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
decisions.
Planet Visitor II
Bill
Apr 2, 2013, 7:04:04 AM4/2/13
to
The USA was well thrashed.
If the politicians tell you to run away the army runs away.
It remains beaten...
'The stab in the back' remains a fiction used by defeated armies
throughout history.
Face it son, you got whipped...
chatnoir
Apr 2, 2013, 8:41:01 AM4/2/13
to
On Apr 2, 12:36 am, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/21/newsid_2935...
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
> ><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:37:18 -0400, Planet Visitor II
> ><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>
> And how long did the English run away from the bloody handed
> Nazis, and wait to reclaim Europe from the Nazis and end the
> Holocaust? Let's see... Dunkirk --ended June 1940. WW II -
> ended 8 May 1945. Give it a month less than FIVE YEARS. Twice
> as long as it took the North Vietnamese to illegally invade South
> Vietnam. Left Europe to the bloody handed Nazis for five years.
> Since we're now throwing stones. Not only that... you needed
> HELP from the U.S. military.
>
> >The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
> >battles.
>
> And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
> MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
> to the wording of that claim.
>
> >Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...
>
> My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. Whatever
> political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
> since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
> ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
> decisions.
>
> Planet Visitor II
LOL
> And how long did the English run away from the bloody handed
> Nazis, and wait to reclaim Europe from the Nazis and end the
> Holocaust? Let's see... Dunkirk --ended June 1940. WW II -
> ended 8 May 1945. Give it a month less than FIVE YEARS. Twice
> as long as it took the North Vietnamese to illegally invade South
> Vietnam. Left Europe to the bloody handed Nazis for five years.
> Since we're now throwing stones. Not only that... you needed
> HELP from the U.S. military.
>
> >The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
> >battles.
>
> And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
> MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
> to the wording of that claim.
>
> >Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...
>
> My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. Whatever
> political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
> since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
> ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
> decisions.
>
> Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
Apr 4, 2013, 11:50:33 PM4/4/13
to
On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:04:04 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:36:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
>>>battles.
>>
>>And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
>>MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
>>to the wording of that claim.
<deathly silence>
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:36:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
><na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The US Armed Forces never lost a battle, but armies only fight
>>>battles.
>>
>>And there you have it. Agreement with my comment that "the U.S.
>>MILITARY DID NOT lose the war in Vietnam." Pay careful attention
>>to the wording of that claim.
>>>Countries fight wars, and the USA lost this one...
>>
>>My comments have always referred to the U.S. MILTARY. Whatever
>>political choices were made has nothing to do with the U.S. MILITARY,
>>since by law the U.S. MILITARY does not make political decisions of
>>ANY kind. They can only advise those who do make such political
>>decisions.
>
>Utter lunacy.
banging your shoe on the rostrum at the UN??
>The USA was well thrashed.
Military had not lost the war in Vietnam??
>If the politicians tell you to run away the army runs away.
>
and a half years after the last American combat boot had left South
Vietnam, or any combat action in Vietnam had taken place. Then
the North Vietnamese ILLEGALLY invaded South Vietnam. I suppose
your argument is that because the North Vietnamese ILLEGALLY
invaded South Vietnam, and violated a peace agreement forged with
the U.S., the U.S. MILITARY SHOULD HAVE used a nuke against Hanoi,
and since the U.S. MILITARY DIDN'T - that's your "proof" they lost
the war.
>It remains beaten...
Oh... the agony of de feet. Perhaps you're pissed that the U.S. Military
didn't return to Vietnam as a result of the ILLEGAL invasion of South
Vietnam by the North Vietnamese, in order to kill a few more million
Vietnamese to satisfy your bloodlust. Yeah... I can see why you'd
consider the U.S. military "lost." We didn't kill enough of the Vietnamese
people to satisfy that bloodlust of yours, and killing ten Vietnamese
for every American lost just isn't enough for you, since you expect the
"winner" to kill at least 100 to 1. Of course, we could have done
10,000 to 1 with that good ol' nuke that you "wish" we had used so
you could call us "winners." What's a few POWs being killed as
"collateral damage," in nuking Hanoi, as far as you're concerned???
>'The stab in the back' remains a fiction used by defeated armies
>throughout history.
>Face it son, you got whipped...
knickers in the third grade when the Vietnam war raged, how would
you know, little man?
Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
Apr 4, 2013, 11:51:04 PM4/4/13
to
That was the policy of the U.S. military until Truman decided that it wasn't. And
the world did a flip-flop at that moment. Truman forgot that he only became
a national figure because Roosevelt died. And Roosevelt's policy went right along
with MacArthur's with his "unconditional surrender."
Anyone who would argue that the Soviets were actually going to enter into a war
with the U.S. if the U.S. decided to use a nuclear weapon to exterminate the
communist leadership of Communist China in one fell swoop, is living in fairy land.
In April 1951, the Soviets would have been shaking in their boots at the thought
of engaging the U.S. in a nuclear war, or coming to the defense of a leaderless
China, being threatened by both the U.S. nuclear might and the Chinese
Nationalists rag-tag army being reinvigorated.
Planet Visitor II
0 new messages