No Understanding
Mark W. McBride, President/CEO
fighters and strategists by the politicians. I disagree with the
populist notion that Vietnam was not a winnable war; it _was_ winnable,
we just weren't _allowed_ to win it. "Get in, get it done." should have
been the order.
---------------
Did you hear the news? Our ether buddy Ralph McGehee <rmcg...@igc.org>
responded thusly:
Re: McBride's comments:
Here are some of my reasons for saying we could not win. In essence
we were the invading army without the support of the people of Vietnam.
Our invasion, of course, was hidden by a bodyguard of lies and presented
to the world audience as the United States coming to the aid of a
beleaguered nation.
-----------
Ralph, as I understand it, we were the invading army without the support
of the people of Germany ... but we still kicked butt. The decision was
made, in that case, to win.
Sure a lot of ordnance was dropped, and a lot of dirt was blown up in
the air. How much of that ordnance was dropped on North Vietnam? Not
much. Constraint. We were trying to control a can of worms.
There were a LOT of mistakes made in that war ... but it WAS winnable.
Did we support a resumption of French colonialism, which amounted to
Vietnamese slavery? Did we support a corrupt government in South
Vietnam? Yes. Constraint. Could we have supported a different, less
corrupt government? YES! To the Vietnamese people, the communists of
North Vietnam weren't much better but they _were_ the lesser of two
evils.
There was a conscious decision made not to win the war, the prime
constraints being not to dismantle the supply lines from USSR or North
Vietnam to the south and to support an obviously harsh and corrupt
leadership in the south.
Edward Combs Jr.
winnable because the US decided not to win it. IMHO..we were afraid of the
Soviets and China. Now we have the Stockholm Complex about China.
............
Mark W. McBride, President/CEO wrote in message
<3647aae7....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
bnpham
Ralph McGehee wrote:
> Sure a lot of ordnance was dropped, and a lot of dirt was blown up in
> the air. How much of that ordnance was dropped on North Vietnam? Not
> much. Constraint. We were trying to control a can of worms.
>
> RMC: The North Vietnamese after the war said they suffered two
> million killed in the North. Re the extent of U.S. effort "...We dropped
> more bombs on Indochina than all targets in whole human history put together.
> Dr. Stephen E. Ambrose..."
(A lot was deleted...)
I wonder if there is any other souce to confirm the communist figure
of 2 million civilians casualties in the North. In Nixon's "No More VN",
he cited North VNese source of around 1400 civilians killed during the
"Christmas bombings". So how is that all add up to 2 million civilian
casualties in the North.
If that many casualties happened in the North as the result of the
American bombings, then one would expect a great outcry, the North
communist propaganda be working full time on such casualties.
But there were none.
And if the 2 million civilian casualties in North VN did not result from
the American bombings, then what did it result from? Land reforms?
How the North VNese took all rice, fabric resources South to wage a
war and left their population die of hunger, exposure?
I suspect the North Vnese leaderships today added the 2 millions
civilian casualties in the North in there, because otherwise it would
seem that the North suffered the majority of soldiers casualties, and
the South suffered the majority of civilian casualties.
> vietnam, 63-98 on the 20th anniversary of the end of the war hanoi
> revealed the civilian casualties of the vn war were 2,000,000 in the north,
> and 2,000,000 in the south. military casualties were 1.1 million killed and
> 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war (1963-74). these figures were
> deliberately falsified during the war by the north vn to avoid demoralizing
> the population. given a vietnamese population of around 38 million,
> vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the country.
> agence france presse. 9/4/95
>
--
Please visit the Thai Binh webpages at for extensive coverage of the
events at Xuan Loc, Thai Binh and else where:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4417
http://www.members.aol.com/thaibinhvn
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/4973/index.htm
Mike Hunt
>
> Thanks for saying again what we all have been trying to say. It was not
> winnable because the US decided not to win it. IMHO..we were afraid of the
> Soviets and China.
I'm not sure that "afraid" is the right word. In 1964 the people of the
U.S. elected the "peace" candidate (LBJ) instead of the "hawk"
(Goldwater). If only our politicians would have done what the people
wanted, instead of lying to us...
Mark W. McBride, President/CEO
<36488A38...@igc.org>, our ether buddy Ralph McGehee
<rmcg...@igc.org> spaketh thusly:
:)Ralph, as I understand it, we were the invading army without the support
:)of the people of Germany ... but we still kicked butt. The decision was
:)made, in that case, to win.
:)
:) RMC: Equating WWI with the Vietnam War is not possible -- the
:)circustances were entirely different.
Well, actually I was equating it to WWII, but your example serves just
as well. We earned the hearts and minds of the German generals and
German people only when the writing was on the wall that the allied
forces would be victorious and we started bombing the hell out of Berlin
and taking the war home to the German people. Everybody loves a winner.
A cite of yours claimed the North Vietnamese falsified reports of
military and civilian casualties presented to their citizens. No one
would believe a false report if they see for a fact that downtown Hanoi
is in rubble. They'd be saying to themselves the Vietnamese equivalent
of: "What the hell have we let those bastards get us into!!!!"
:)Sure a lot of ordnance was dropped, and a lot of dirt was blown up in
:)the air. How much of that ordnance was dropped on North Vietnam? Not
:)much. Constraint. We were trying to control a can of worms.
:)
:) RMC: The North Vietnamese after the war said they suffered two
:)million killed in the North. Re the extent of U.S. effort "...We dropped
:)more bombs on Indochina than all targets in whole human history put together.
:)Dr. Stephen E. Ambrose..."
Your citations show that an increased ratio of munitions was dropped on
the South, where the U.S. friendlies were intermingled with Viet Cong
and NVA. Had the ordnance been dropped where it should have been dropped
- North Vietnam - this current discussion would be moot.
:) There were a LOT of mistakes made in that war ... but it WAS winnable.
:)
:) RMC: Please describe how it could have been won and cite your sources
:)that document your views.
My sources are your sources. It is the lesser of two evils for McNamara
and Bundy to claim that the war was unwinnable. They get off easy and
give credit where credit is not due ... to the brilliant strategy of
communist commanders rather than the ineptitude and arrogance of U.S.
commanders/politicians. If McNamara and Bundy came out with the harder
truth and said the order was given to NOT win the war, a lot of vets
would be doing to them - and other members of the U.S. government and
military - what the Italians did to Mussolini. Orders to "engage" the
enemy are not the same as orders to "defeat" the enemy.
:)Did we support a resumption of French colonialism, which amounted to
:)Vietnamese slavery? Did we support a corrupt government in South
:)Vietnam? Yes. Constraint. Could we have supported a different, less
:)corrupt government? YES! To the Vietnamese people, the communists of
:)North Vietnam weren't much better but they _were_ the lesser of two
:)evils.
:)
:) RMC: Millions of people died fighting for their liberty -- this
:)indicates a major committment.
Yes it does. Define liberty from a Vietnamese farmer's POV: The liberty
they enjoyed under the communists who stole their food and kidnapped
their sons, the liberty they enjoyed under a harsh regime in the South
that did the same, or the liberty they enjoyed under French colonialism
where they owned no land and were virtual slaves. These were the
alternatives the U.S. presented to them. But other alternatives were
available.
:)There was a conscious decision made not to win the war, the prime
:)constraints being not to dismantle the supply lines from USSR or North
:)Vietnam to the south and to support an obviously harsh and corrupt
:)leadership in the south.
:)
:) RMC: Please cite your sources re the conscious decision not to
:)win the war.
Aye, there's the rub. Just because there aren't official sources in the
Congressional Record that orders were given to NOT win the war, means
the order wasn't given. An oft used phrase at USNA: "It's most obvious
to even the most casual of observers."
:)Ralph McGehee
:)CIABASE
:)------------------------
:)Brief traces from CIABASE:
:)
:) vietnam, 50-75 see "the legacy of the vn war," in the indochina news
:) letter. total cambodians, laotians, vnese and american dead 2,282,000;
:) wounded 3,200,000; 15,500,000 tons firepower used by u.s. of that total
:) 12,000,000 used in svn alone. u.s. used 6,000,000 tons of munitions in wwii
12 million tons of munitions dropped on South Vietnam -- leaving the
remaining 3.5 million tons to be distributed to Laos, Cambodia and North
Vietnam? Was the problem in South Vietnam or North Vietnam? From the
statistics, it seems that the vast majority of communist fighters in
Vietnam were located in the south.
"If you can't fool them with facts, baffle them with bullshit" Dept.:
This cite above says total dead in the war was 2,282,000 INCLUDING
Cambodians, Laotians and Americans. But another cite of yours says that:
:)vietnam, 63-98 on the 20th anniversary of the end of the war hanoi
:)revealed the civilian casualties of the vn war were 2,000,000 in the
:)north, and 2,000,000 in the south. military casualties were 1.1 million
:)killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war (1963-74). these figures
:)were deliberately falsified during the war by the north vn to avoid
:)demoralizing the population. given a vietnamese population of around
:)38 million, vietnamese casualties represent a good 12-13% of the country.
:)agence france presse. 9/4/95
There some incongruence here Ralph. ;)
William Barwell
Mark W. McBride, President/CEO <Publ...@6th.Estate.com Remove the dot after 6th to reply directly.> wrote:
>"Knew we could not win" solely given the constraints placed on the
>fighters and strategists by the politicians. I disagree with the
>populist notion that Vietnam was not a winnable war; it _was_ winnable,
>we just weren't _allowed_ to win it. "Get in, get it done." should have
>been the order.
>
Basically at the peak of the war, we had 1 million men in Viet Nam.
To have militarily won would have taken much more, and that only
if we gave up our self defeating and foolish policies of cruelly
destroying much of the country to 'save' it, which only made us more
enemies. The only real way to have ended the war militarily would have
been to have massive military force invade North Viet Nam, but the Chinese
warned us most plainly, that any such attempts to invade North Viet Nam
would have brought China into the war.
Swell, a land war with the largest country on Earth.
There was no possibility of winning militarily, and we stupidly
screwed up any chance we might have had to settle that in a non-military
manner by being hamfisted idiots.
Anybody who thinks it was merely a matter of 'letting us win' is an
obvious moron.
Anybody who missed the fact that China warned us that any
attempt to destroy or invade North Viet Nam risked their direct
military involvment is not familiar enough with the facts of the matter
to have their opinion count with anybody who matters.
This is all a stupid right winged myth like the foolish
myth that Jews stabbed Germany in the back in WWI. Stupid myths have
stupid consequences when you have enough stupid people to belive them.
Unfortunately, the stupid and ill-informed
we always have with us.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
dean_shultis
>
>In article <3647aae7....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
>Mark W. McBride, President/CEO <Publ...@6th.Estate.com Remove the dot after
>6th to reply directly.> wrote:
>>"Knew we could not win" solely given the constraints placed on the
>>fighters and strategists by the politicians. I disagree with the
>>populist notion that Vietnam was not a winnable war; it _was_ winnable,
>>we just weren't _allowed_ to win it. "Get in, get it done." should have
>>been the order.
>>
>
>Utter idiocy of the far right mindless sort.
>
>
>There was no possibility of winning militarily, and we stupidly
>screwed up any chance we might have had to settle that in a non-military
>manner by being hamfisted idiots.
>
>Anybody who thinks it was merely a matter of 'letting us win' is an
>obvious moron.
>
>This is all a stupid right winged myth like the foolish
>myth that Jews stabbed Germany in the back in WWI. Stupid myths have
>stupid consequences when you have enough stupid people to belive them.
>Unfortunately, the stupid and ill-informed
>we always have with us.
>
>Pope Charles
Do you often win arguments by calling those who disagree with you, "stupid"?
Dean
di...@strato.net
Bill Clarke
>
> In article <3647aae7....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
> Mark W. McBride, President/CEO <Publ...@6th.Estate.com Remove the dot after 6th to reply directly.> wrote:
> >"Knew we could not win" solely given the constraints placed on the
> >fighters and strategists by the politicians. I disagree with the
> >populist notion that Vietnam was not a winnable war; it _was_ winnable,
> >we just weren't _allowed_ to win it. "Get in, get it done." should have
> >been the order.
> >
>
> Utter idiocy of the far right mindless sort.
>
> To have militarily won would have taken much more, and that only
> if we gave up our self defeating and foolish policies of cruelly
> destroying much of the country to 'save' it, which only made us more
> enemies. The only real way to have ended the war militarily would have
> been to have massive military force invade North Viet Nam, but the Chinese
> warned us most plainly, that any such attempts to invade North Viet Nam
> would have brought China into the war.
> Swell, a land war with the largest country on Earth.
>
> screwed up any chance we might have had to settle that in a non-military
> manner by being hamfisted idiots.
>
> Anybody who thinks it was merely a matter of 'letting us win' is an
> obvious moron.
> attempt to destroy or invade North Viet Nam risked their direct
> military involvment is not familiar enough with the facts of the matter
> to have their opinion count with anybody who matters.
>
> myth that Jews stabbed Germany in the back in WWI. Stupid myths have
> stupid consequences when you have enough stupid people to belive them.
> Unfortunately, the stupid and ill-informed
> we always have with us.
>
> Pope Charles
> Slack!
My, my William, aren’t you full of yourself today. Since you have
doubled the number of US troops present in Viet Nam at the peak, it
suggest to me that you are more full of hot air than you are full of the
truth and facts. Could it be that you are one of the stupid and
ill-informed we always have with us.
Please furnish your references dealing with China’s warning to the US.
As for the rest of your ill-informed strategic reasoning, we always have
the ill-informed with us.
Bill Clarke
F Troop, 17th Cav
Mike Hunt
>
> In article <3647aae7....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
> Mark W. McBride, President/CEO <Publ...@6th.Estate.com Remove the dot after 6th to reply directly.> wrote:
> >"Knew we could not win" solely given the constraints placed on the
> >fighters and strategists by the politicians. I disagree with the
> >populist notion that Vietnam was not a winnable war; it _was_ winnable,
> >we just weren't _allowed_ to win it. "Get in, get it done." should have
> >been the order.
> >
>
The peak was in '69 when the U.S. had a little more than half a million
soldiers in Vietnam. I think there was another 100,000 in either ships
offshore or bombing support in other countries.
> Anybody who thinks it was merely a matter of 'letting us win' is an
> obvious moron.
> Anybody who missed the fact that China warned us that any
> attempt to destroy or invade North Viet Nam risked their direct
> military involvment is not familiar enough with the facts of the matter
I think you are right. I remember the '64 presidential election, where
the "peace" candidate Lyndon Johnson had TV advertisements showing
nuclear bomb explosions. The message was that if the U.S. bombed Hanoi
as Goldwater wanted to do, then the country would get into a nuclear
war.
John LaBrecque
Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat. When the US news media
gave misinformation about how well the NVA did, the NVA decided to
change their gameplan and continue the war. US anti-war demonstrators
added to the NVA's hopes. Because of people like Walter Cronkite, Jane
Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc. 48,000+ more names were added to "The Wall".
--
Semper Fi
Jack L
http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
http://members.aol.com/jitb/usmc/usmc.htm
CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
a United States Marine.
"Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
Matt Osborn
would have have thought more than a million. Well, I'm just an idiot, far right and all that dismissive stuff;
shucks, M wouldn't even lick my boots. So, Mr. Barwell, tell us more.
Matt Osborn
William Barwell wrote:
> In article <3647aae7....@news.atl.bellsouth.net>,
> Mark W. McBride, President/CEO <Publ...@6th.Estate.com Remove the dot after 6th to reply directly.> wrote:
> >"Knew we could not win" solely given the constraints placed on the
> >fighters and strategists by the politicians. I disagree with the
> >populist notion that Vietnam was not a winnable war; it _was_ winnable,
> >we just weren't _allowed_ to win it. "Get in, get it done." should have
> >been the order.
> >
>
> Utter idiocy of the far right mindless sort.
>
> Basically at the peak of the war, we had 1 million men in Viet Nam.
> To have militarily won would have taken much more, and that only
> if we gave up our self defeating and foolish policies of cruelly
> destroying much of the country to 'save' it, which only made us more
> enemies. The only real way to have ended the war militarily would have
> been to have massive military force invade North Viet Nam, but the Chinese
> warned us most plainly, that any such attempts to invade North Viet Nam
> would have brought China into the war.
> Swell, a land war with the largest country on Earth.
>
> There was no possibility of winning militarily, and we stupidly
> screwed up any chance we might have had to settle that in a non-military
> manner by being hamfisted idiots.
>
> Anybody who thinks it was merely a matter of 'letting us win' is an
> obvious moron.
> Anybody who missed the fact that China warned us that any
> attempt to destroy or invade North Viet Nam risked their direct
> military involvment is not familiar enough with the facts of the matter
Bill Clarke
>
> A million huh? Are you sure we didn't have 10 GaZillion? With all those planes, boats, choppers ands tents, I
> would have have thought more than a million. Well, I'm just an idiot, far right and all that dismissive stuff;
> shucks, M wouldn't even lick my boots. So, Mr. Barwell, tell us more.
>
> Matt Osborn
>
Aw Matt, why’d you have to go and tell them about the 10 GaZillion we
really had over there. Now Mike Hunt will rush to the campus in
virulent protest.......until the coward remembers the draft doesn’t
exist anymore.
bnpham
John LaBrecque wrote:
> Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat. When the US news media
> gave misinformation about how well the NVA did, the NVA decided to
> change their gameplan and continue the war. US anti-war demonstrators
> added to the NVA's hopes. Because of people like Walter Cronkite, Jane
> Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc. 48,000+ more names were added to "The Wall".
I wonder if there is any thing to back up this speculation.
Because it might very well be the truth. Because militarily,
there was not reason for the VCs to continued their second
and third wave after Tet Offensive. They did not succeed
the first time, the surprise element was lost, the allies were
prepared, the ARVN were back in full from their holiday
leaves.
> --
> Semper Fi
>
> Jack L
> http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
> http://members.aol.com/jitb/usmc/usmc.htm
> CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
> My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
> a United States Marine.
> "Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
> they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
> have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
--
Please visit the Thai Binh webpages at for extensive coverage of the
events at Xuan Loc, Thai Binh and else where:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4417
Photographer Nick Ut said when he took the Napalm girl photograph: "None
of this would have happened if the Communists had stayed in the north."
Donald L Ferry
>Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
>Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat. When the US news media
>gave misinformation about how well the NVA did, the NVA decided to
>change their gameplan and continue the war. US anti-war demonstrators
>added to the NVA's hopes. Because of people like Walter Cronkite, Jane
>Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc. 48,000+ more names were added to "The Wall".
>
yea Gee! Let us just scrap our form of government for a militarily
orientated Empire. Plus a lot of After the evewnt Quarterbacks!
Point is there was no purpose to the war in Vietnam = For the "hey we
will WINNNN = Bukkshit = That has nothing to do with any kind of
policy!
Matt Osborn
> Utter idiocy of the far right mindless sort.
Yeah, I agree. Those damn right wingers are never satisfied. Us
democrats went to all that trouble to start a war for them and even went
so far as to make special rules to keep the war interesting.
We made the dumb sum bitches tape the spoons on their grenades, wouldn't
let'em shoot back unless LBJ said so; Good ol' McNamara built 'em their
own Maginot Line up near the 'Z and then manned it with about a third of
the necessary troop strength. Man, we humped those guys all over, through
and around that strip and them let 'em tackle the NVA. Those ungrateful
Marines of the 9th, 3rd and 4th Marine regiments never had it so good.
Hell, we gave 'em rifles that wouldn't shoot, more that enough cleaning
rods, at least two or three per squad. We sent 'em out hunting booby
traps and mines with their various body parts; we stopped them from
pursuing the NVA into their various sanctuaries, supplied 'em with enough
water to keep the mosquitoes happy, fed 'em with the left over C-Rats from
the Korean war, kept 'em worn out and tired. Then, when the sum bitches
wouldn't even keep themselves clean enough, we sprayed them with poison to
kill the jungle rot. We even let their movie stars visit Hanoi and sent
them back pictures of some pretty neat anti-aircraft weapons.
Jeez, we even bought them home in a matter of hours, spit at 'em, called
'em drug crazed baby killers, made 'em work twice as hard and be twice as
nice as the next guy to get a job, gave 'em tennis shoe money for college
and showed 'em pictures of their buddies getting blown to shit back in the
war.
Yes Sir there Mr. Barwell, those far out right wingers are nothing but a
bunch of ungrateful whiners. The sum bitches then have the temerity to
claim that they might have won the war. After all the things we democrats
did for them, those losers won't even admit that they lost the war.
By way of contrast, look how the republicans handled the war in the Gulf.
Hell, they bombed all the important targets, used tanks and rifles that
actually worked, gave 'em good food, bottled water, didn't cuss 'em out at
all, didn't send their movie stars to Baghdad (except for Peter Arnett)
and look what happened. The damn war was over before anybody got jungle
rot. Less than 300 troops killed, hell those poor guys barely got any
exercise at all. Yes, siree Bob, thats no way to conduct a war. We have
got to keep those far out right wingers in their place!
Matt Osborn
Lee
Matt Osborn <msos...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:364D2158...@ibm.net...
>We made the dumb sum bitches tape the spoons on their grenades,
wouldn't
>let'em shoot back unless LBJ said so;
Well, that's a fancy tale, Matt, but the those funky rules were
still around under Nixon, trust me. The stupidity went deeper than
political parties.
>By way of contrast, look how the republicans handled the war in the
Gulf.
Oh, yeah, all by themselves.
>Hell, they bombed all the important targets, used tanks and rifles
that
>actually worked,
Seems to me they used the M16 again...are the Republicans takeing
credit for every modification to the M16 that was made between 1966
and 91? Well, of course...
When you get done taking out the generalizing, there really wasn't a
whole lot to that long post. Neither party, liberal nor
conservative, have done anyone a whole lot of favors. These
generalizations and claims of grandeur from either side get a bit
silly, IMO.
Lee
Matt Osborn
dispute the idiocy of McNamara's strip? Do you dispute LBJ's tightly
held control of the execution of the war? Do you dispute that LBJ failed
to mobilize the reserves in an effort to gain public support of the war?
Do you dispute that the ammunition supplied during the Vietnam war
caused the the M16 to fail? Do you dispute that Jane Fonda was allowed
to do what she did without repercussions? Do you dispute that American
soldiers were forced to fight the NVA on the NVA's terms rather than
their own terms? Do you dispute that Nixon ordered the first effective
bombing raids over North Vietnam? Do you dispute that Richard Nixon is
the first administration to actually attempt to close the North
Vietnamese harbors?
Not directed at you Lee, but I've had a belly full of liberal democrats
that fail to take responsibility for their actions. The Vietnam war was
started by democrats and ended by republicans. The gulf war was started
and ended by the same party; as was Somalia. How many troops do we
still have in Haiti and what the hell is going on there? Bosnia, Iraq
and Gulf war veterans, thank God we got rid of Bush, only democrats know
how to handle those ungrateful veterans and their constant complaints of
mistreatment. I could go on, but what is the point? When Nixon lied,
the republicans turned him out, when Clinton lied, it doesn't matter.
After all, he is only protecting his family for all those months after
his family knows the truth.
Sorry, Lee, but the emperor has no clothes.
Matt Osborn
Mark W. McBride, President/CEO
<72j6ub$s...@news-central.tiac.net>, our ether buddy "Lee"
<gen...@tiac.net> spaketh thusly:
:)When you get done taking out the generalizing, there really wasn't a
:)whole lot to that long post. Neither party, liberal nor
:)conservative, have done anyone a whole lot of favors. These
:)generalizations and claims of grandeur from either side get a bit
:)silly, IMO.
Well, hell, I liked it Matt! :)
How about answering these questions. This isn't a setup; I seriously
don't know the answers.
Whose idea was "body counts?"
Whose idea was the "policy of containment?"
Oh, and to that Canadian police officer looking in alt.politics.org.cia
for CIA "badges" for his collections of shields ... does anyone have any
ears left over they can spare for a friend north of the border?
John LaBrecque
I'm not arguing whether we should have been there or not. The point is
Washington put us there and the military was winning battles. The
casualties rose from 10,000 to 58,000+ because of actions by Washington,
the press and the demonstrators.
John LaBrecque
>
> John LaBrecque wrote:
>
> > Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> > Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat. When the US news media
> > gave misinformation about how well the NVA did, the NVA decided to
> > change their gameplan and continue the war. US anti-war demonstrators
> > added to the NVA's hopes. Because of people like Walter Cronkite, Jane
> > Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc. 48,000+ more names were added to "The Wall".
>
> Because it might very well be the truth. Because militarily,
> there was not reason for the VCs to continued their second
> and third wave after Tet Offensive. They did not succeed
> the first time, the surprise element was lost, the allies were
> leaves.
>
General Giap outlined it in his book.
John LaBrecque
>
> William Barwell wrote:
>
> > Utter idiocy of the far right mindless sort.
>
> Yeah, I agree. Those damn right wingers are never satisfied. Us
> democrats went to all that trouble to start a war for them and even went
> so far as to make special rules to keep the war interesting.
>
> own Maginot Line up near the 'Z and then manned it with about a third of
> the necessary troop strength. Man, we humped those guys all over, through
> and around that strip and them let 'em tackle the NVA. Those ungrateful
> Marines of the 9th, 3rd and 4th Marine regiments never had it so good.
>
> Hell, we gave 'em rifles that wouldn't shoot, more that enough cleaning
> rods, at least two or three per squad. We sent 'em out hunting booby
> traps and mines with their various body parts; we stopped them from
> pursuing the NVA into their various sanctuaries, supplied 'em with enough
> water to keep the mosquitoes happy, fed 'em with the left over C-Rats from
> the Korean war, kept 'em worn out and tired. Then, when the sum bitches
> wouldn't even keep themselves clean enough, we sprayed them with poison to
> kill the jungle rot. We even let their movie stars visit Hanoi and sent
> them back pictures of some pretty neat anti-aircraft weapons.
>
> Jeez, we even bought them home in a matter of hours, spit at 'em, called
> 'em drug crazed baby killers, made 'em work twice as hard and be twice as
> nice as the next guy to get a job, gave 'em tennis shoe money for college
> and showed 'em pictures of their buddies getting blown to shit back in the
> war.
>
> Yes Sir there Mr. Barwell, those far out right wingers are nothing but a
> bunch of ungrateful whiners. The sum bitches then have the temerity to
> claim that they might have won the war. After all the things we democrats
> did for them, those losers won't even admit that they lost the war.
>
> all, didn't send their movie stars to Baghdad (except for Peter Arnett)
> and look what happened. The damn war was over before anybody got jungle
> rot. Less than 300 troops killed, hell those poor guys barely got any
> exercise at all. Yes, siree Bob, thats no way to conduct a war. We have
> got to keep those far out right wingers in their place!
>
> Matt Osborn
OOH-RAH!! to you Matt.
John LaBrecque
>
OOH-RAH!! to you again Matt. But, it's falling on deaf ears. The
people that support their "BJ" President will never agree with you.
After all, you were there. What do you know? In the mean time, how
about a nice cigar?
John LaBrecque
member of the NRA and even knew some of the techs at Colt in my home
State of Connecticut. When the complaints of problems with early
production M16's started coming in, many of the proposed changes to the
chamber and ammunition were recommended by NRA members and pushed
through by Republican support in Congress. It seems that what goes
around comes around. Under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, etc. we had
military equiptment failures and lack of supplies. One of the biggest
complaints in today's military is lack of supplies and spare parts. I
just hope it doesn't bite us in our use of the military in the actions
coming up.
Bill Clarke
many indicators of what fools we had running the war. However, I don’t
think I would be giving Nixon/Kissinger & Company too much praise for
their role in Viet Nam either. I admit that my personal disgust and
dislike of both men might cloud my view, but a large number of the names
on the Wall belong to these two men. I applaud their gumption to
attempt to close the North Vietnamese harbors and to do something about
the communist sanctuarys in Laos and Cambodia, actions that LBJ should
have done long before.
I’m not sure that I am reading your comment on Somalia correctly but
best I remember Slick Willie and Company ended that one by refusing to
send requested Armored support to the troops. A criminal act in my
book.
Herb F.
Democratic and Republican Party responsibilities for the war...I don't
know if it fair to blame any one party, but I do know that was a nicely
written pirce by Matt and the tactics mentioned seem to be "right on."
John LaBrecque
A point on Somalia that was brought home by the video of the naked body
of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets. Another
addition to the Clinton bio of shame.
Donald L Ferry
>OBTW....I followed the development of the M16 fairly close as I was a
>member of the NRA and even knew some of the techs at Colt in my home
>State of Connecticut. When the complaints of problems with early
>production M16's started coming in, many of the proposed changes to the
>chamber and ammunition were recommended by NRA members and pushed
>through by Republican support in Congress. It seems that what goes
>around comes around. Under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, etc. we had
>military equiptment failures and lack of supplies. One of the biggest
>complaints in today's military is lack of supplies and spare parts. I
>just hope it doesn't bite us in our use of the military in the actions
>coming up.
Well in 69 and 70 an M 16 could still jam up very easily!
Mike Hunt
>
> Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat.
I don't believe this is true. Can you back it up?
Mike Hunt
>
> Do you dispute that LBJ failed
> to mobilize the reserves in an effort to gain public support of the war?
No, no. He did not mobilize the reserves because it would have exposed
to the public what Vietnam was about. He knew that the public would not
have supported the war. It had to be hidden from the people as much as
possible. This is well documented.
Alan Stark
John LaBrecque wrote:
> Donald L Ferry wrote:
> >
> > John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> > >Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat. When the US news media
> > >gave misinformation about how well the NVA did, the NVA decided to
> > >change their gameplan and continue the war. US anti-war demonstrators
> > >added to the NVA's hopes. Because of people like Walter Cronkite, Jane
> > >Fonda, Bill Clinton, etc. 48,000+ more names were added to "The Wall".
> > >
> > yea Gee! Let us just scrap our form of government for a militarily
> > orientated Empire. Plus a lot of After the evewnt Quarterbacks!
> >
> > Point is there was no purpose to the war in Vietnam = For the "hey we
> > will WINNNN = Bukkshit = That has nothing to do with any kind of
> > policy!
>
> I'm not arguing whether we should have been there or not. The point is
> Washington put us there and the military was winning battles. The
> casualties rose from 10,000 to 58,000+ because of actions by Washington,
> the press and the demonstrators.
Many of those demonstrators were vets returning from Vietnam, who I don't
believe wanted to see casualities increased. I do agree that the government
had no plans or objectives and if they government had decided not to escalate
and called it a day, then casualities would have not risen to 58,000 either.
Alan Stark
McCarthy'68 Moratorium'69 McGovern'72
Alan Stark
Matt Osborn wrote:
> William Barwell wrote:
>
> > Utter idiocy of the far right mindless sort.
>
>
>
>
> By way of contrast, look how the republicans handled the war in the Gulf.
> Hell, they bombed all the important targets, used tanks and rifles that
> actually worked, gave 'em good food, bottled water, didn't cuss 'em out at
> all, didn't send their movie stars to Baghdad (except for Peter Arnett)
> and look what happened. The damn war was over before anybody got jungle
> rot. Less than 300 troops killed, hell those poor guys barely got any
> exercise at all. Yes, siree Bob, thats no way to conduct a war. We have
> got to keep those far out right wingers in their place!
Seems to me we are still dealing with Iraq, and they are still pulling our
chain, is that what you call would call the proper way to conduct a war? Just
asking...
Alan Stark
>
>
> Matt Osborn
John LaBrecque
>
> John LaBrecque wrote:
> >
> > Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> > Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat.
>
In the book written by General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, Giap
clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and
had been continually defeated time and again. By 1968, NVA morale was
at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last
desperate
attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When
it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a
failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a
surrender.
At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the
Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their
defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and
correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by
the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing
that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained
access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the
grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated
the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to
the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and
decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day,
week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to
achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.
Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were
fewer than 10,000.
From an article by: Gene Kuentzler, S-3 Operations, 19th Combat Engineer
Battalion
John LaBrecque
We are still dealing with Iraq because they percieve us to have a leader
that is weak. I doubt that they would have tried to test Reagan or Bush
the same way they have chosen to test Clinton.
bnpham
that? The title? I wonder if anyone else can collaborate this
detail? I do not dismiss your argument John. I just simply
looking for definite proof.
John LaBrecque wrote:
> --
> Semper Fi
>
> Jack L
> http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
> http://members.aol.com/jitb/usmc/usmc.htm
> CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
> My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
> a United States Marine.
> "Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
> they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
> have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
--
Donald L Ferry
>Interesting post. Can you tell me (us) which Giap's book was
>that? The title? I wonder if anyone else can collaborate this
>detail? I do not dismiss your argument John. I just simply
>looking for definite proof.
>
Sounds like the American Right Wings justifies everything ever done to
me!
Donald L Ferry
>
>We are still dealing with Iraq because they percieve us to have a leader
>that is weak. I doubt that they would have tried to test Reagan or Bush
>the same way they have chosen to test Clinton.
>
Oh Yea! Reaggy gets hit in Beruit and pulls out = yea real tough =-
right!
Edward Combs Jr.
[I chop News Groups just for the fun of it]
...........................
Donald L Ferry wrote in message <364dd6a...@news.mindspring.com>...
Ed Yates
>Mike Hunt wrote:
>>
>> John LaBrecque wrote:
>> >
>> > Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
>> > Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat.
>>
>> I don't believe this is true. Can you back it up?
>
>In the book written by General Giap, Commander of NVA forces,
>at it's lowest point ever.
Damn...a intresting thread gets started and someone invaribly asks "the big
questions"
"Prove it, or document it, or can you back it up, or something along those
lines." Shit have we become a society where free thought and intercourse
has gotten to the point of having to prove everything that is stated, is our
society that damn fucked-up. Does everything "have" to be proven?
Even if you have the source of his info, will you believe it, will you ask
the source to "prove it".....Damn, if yer intrested in the book, then why
not ask, "Do you remember the name of the book, I would like to read it."
BTW....I have come across a "similar" statement in a book about Giap....
this book states that Giap didn't really think that TET would succeed, but
he was
willing to do it, and if the setback was too large he would continue on
for as long as it took, even if it meant "starting over", (pgs 144-148
Paperback)
And to save you typing "Can you prove it", I'll list below the book......
The End of the Line
The Siege of Khe Sanh
by Robert Pisor
Copywrite 1982
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-18722
ISBN 0-345-33112-5
Look in Chapter 6, titled Giap
And yes ...for those who are wondering, we former Mud Marines do read
books sometimes, not always comic books.
Semper Fi
Ed Yates
Sgt USMC
C 1/1
RVN 67-68
Charlie Company 1stBn 1st Marines 65-71
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7205/
Bill Tyner
> Seems to me we are still dealing with Iraq, and they are still pulling
our
> chain, is that what you call would call the proper way to conduct a war?
Just
> asking...
>
> Alan Stark
>
Sarcasm alert...
I seem to remember that about 72 hrs into DS, the newsmedia, (specifically
remembering Dan Rather) began using the terminology of "pouring it on"
referencing the reports of wholesale slaughter being conducted by "allies"
against the "helpless" Iraqi soldiers. I remember peace marches beginning
and media debating one another about how "we Americans aren't that kind, to
pour it on in a one sided war".
In other words, pressure from these sources made the popular consensus
build to "stop the war" just as the tanks were about to drive into Bagdad.
Well, there you are. The politicians committed battlecus interruptus once
again. I think that it must be engraved on a politicians ID card that:
"Your duty is clear, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is good".
Instead of listening to Swartzkopf (sp), skinny George listened to the
peace polls, and the unfinished mother of all battles rolls on. That's my
take on it fwiw...
Bill
William Langston
which is what we would have had to do to 'take Bagdad'. I do agree that we
should have taken the risk of public opinion by completly destroying the
Republican Guard. We also were afraid of destabilizing the area by leaving
Iraq without a leader. The war planners were thinking about what next, and
that was the problem. Everything we say about it now is with hindsite which
they, or we, did not have at the time, much the same as the constant battles
we wage on this newsgroup.
Yours truly, Bill Langston.
Bill Tyner wrote in message <01be1008$c5fe1b20$301b98d0@default>...
Lee
>Well, we could argue just a bit over the conduct of the war; do you
tightly
>held control of the execution of the war? Do you dispute that LBJ
failed
Of course not, any more than I deny the stupidity of Nixon. They
were equal opportunity idiots.
>Not directed at you Lee, but I've had a belly full of liberal
democrats
>that fail to take responsibility for their actions.
And I've had a belly-full of partisan political bullshit. I don't
need another helping, thanks.
Lee
Lee
John LaBrecque <JI...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:364DA6...@worldnet.att.net...
>One of the biggest
>complaints in today's military is lack of supplies and spare parts.
I
>just hope it doesn't bite us in our use of the military in the
actions
>coming up.
John, that was the same complaint we had in Germany in 1971, and
other places 1973-77.
In addition to payand promotion freezes under Nixon and Ford
(thanks, guys!).
Some things don't change, and tight money for the military between
wars is one of them, no matter who's got the purse strings.
Lee
Democratic responsibility for the war. Matt's having his own little
rant.
I'm sick of hearing that kind of generalistic crap about any single
party.
I didn't go to Vietnam while Johnson was president. Nixon sent me.
And I voted for the bastard.
It took both parties to get us in, and both to get us out -- but not
fast enough. Everyone wants to blame everything on the "other"
political party. It's just bullshit, whichever side does it.
Herb F. <Be...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28818-36...@newsd-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Lee
Lee <gen...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:72lcol$8...@news-central.tiac.net...
Well, hell, I didn't notice the cross-posting bullshit in the
Newsgroups line in time and contributed to it.
I'd recommend folks take everything but AWV off the list when they
reply, as I will. We've got enough trolls without inviting more in.
Mike Hunt
>
> Do you dispute that Jane Fonda was allowed
> to do what she did without repercussions?
That was 1972...the war was already well lost. What repercussions?
Arresting her would have been a huge boon to the anti-war movement.
Sour grapes.
Mike Hunt
>
> Do you dispute that American
> soldiers were forced to fight the NVA on the NVA's terms rather than
> their own terms?
No. The DRV people were fighting on their home land to kick out the
foreigners. They were fighting an army that was vastly better equipped
(flak jackets, boots, aircraft carriers, helicopters, B52s, etc...).
They were outnumbered by 6 to 1 (including ARVN). They were using
guerilla warfare.
Sour grapes.
Mike Hunt
>
> Do you dispute that Nixon ordered the first effective
> bombing raids over North Vietnam?
Do you dispute that Johnson was afraid of escalating the war to risk
either: 1) involving the Chinese army, or 2) nuclear war, or 3) having
to actually get the approval of the American people. Do you dispute
that Nixon ordered *secret* bombings of Cambodia so that the American
people would not find out.
Sour grapes.
Mike Hunt
>
> Do you dispute that American
> soldiers were forced to fight the NVA on the NVA's terms rather than
> their own terms?
Sour grapes.
From the book "The Wars of America":
"Not all the mistakes in Vietnam can be laid on the White House steps.
The military also erred: chiefly by ignoring the French experience to
the extent that, instead of preparing for guerrilla warfare, they
trained both American and South Vietnamese and other allied troops for
conventional warfare; and also by stifling its commands with an
incredible flood of intelligence data; by permitting development of the
'firebase psychosis'; by devising a system of rotation which, limiting a
man's service in Vietnam to a year had the unfortunate effect of
encouraging the ordinary soldier to be cautious while restricting a
company commander's time with his troops;..."
"A mistake for which the military bears equal responsibility with
Johnson was to underestimate the staying power of North Vietnam."
Mike Hunt
>
> Mike Hunt wrote:
> >
> > John LaBrecque wrote:
> > >
> > > Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> > > Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat.
> >
> > I don't believe this is true. Can you back it up?
>
>
> it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a
> failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a
> surrender.
>
> Battalion
From an article? That seems no better than quoting a newsgroup article
by one of the bitter and cynical Vietnam vets in this newsgroup. Your
article has a Vietnam vet giving his interpretation of what Giap means.
But thanks anyway.
Robert Jackson
Victory" General Mark Clark stated " To win the war in Vietnam we must
close the port of Haiphong, and bomb the dikes around Hanoi. Regarding
massive amounts of troops needed to invade the north. Let me call to
your attention the 1970 Son Tay Raid. This raid on a POW camp although a
failed mission due to poor intelligence by the CIA proved that American
Forces in-country could have gone into North Vietnam at will provided
the Washington crowd had the political will.
Donald L Ferry
On the other hand in the Villages near the DmZ in North Vietnam to
quite far North of that Bombing and shelling was the daily norm with
the people living underground. They suffered
quite highly in
family members killed and wounded!
Matt Osborn
resulted in the restrictive 'sandbox' that the military operated within.
See McNamara's book, "In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam"
1. Given number 2, the accountant from Ford Motor Company that Johnson
appointed as his Secretary of Defense reverted to his civilian role when he
found himself over his head.
3. We lost more troops not fighting the Chinese in Vietnam than we did
fighting the Chinese in Korea.
4. South Korea still exists.
Matt Osborn
"Mark W. McBride, President/CEO" wrote:
> Did you hear the news? On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:10:16 -0500, in
> <72j6ub$s...@news-central.tiac.net>, our ether buddy "Lee"
> <gen...@tiac.net> spaketh thusly:
>
> :)When you get done taking out the generalizing, there really wasn't a
> :)whole lot to that long post. Neither party, liberal nor
> :)conservative, have done anyone a whole lot of favors. These
> :)generalizations and claims of grandeur from either side get a bit
> :)silly, IMO.
>
> Well, hell, I liked it Matt! :)
>
> How about answering these questions. This isn't a setup; I seriously
> don't know the answers.
>
> Whose idea was "body counts?"
> Whose idea was the "policy of containment?"
>
> Oh, and to that Canadian police officer looking in alt.politics.org.cia
> for CIA "badges" for his collections of shields ... does anyone have any
> ears left over they can spare for a friend north of the border?
John LaBrecque
>
> Interesting post. Can you tell me (us) which Giap's book was
> that? The title? I wonder if anyone else can collaborate this
> detail? I do not dismiss your argument John. I just simply
> looking for definite proof.
>
I've been told the name of the book is "How We Won the War" by Vo Nguyen
Giap - Paperback - Published 1976.
bnpham
>
> bnpham wrote:
> >
> > Interesting post. Can you tell me (us) which Giap's book was
> > that? The title? I wonder if anyone else can collaborate this
> > detail? I do not dismiss your argument John. I just simply
> > looking for definite proof.
> >
>
> I've been told the name of the book is "How We Won the War" by Vo Nguyen
> Giap - Paperback - Published 1976.
I guess my next logical request is that if anyone has
access to this book, please check out the assertion
and post the original text. I will be looking for
that book as well. And if I see it, I will sure to
post it here.
WarLib'yUK
Mike Hunt <
>From an article? That seems no better than quoting a newsgroup
>article by one of the bitter and cynical Vietnam vets in this
>newsgroup. Your article has a Vietnam vet giving his interpretation
>of what Giap means.
Well Mikey,
You know what they say about what opinions are like - and you
definitely are one
bnpham
> John LaBrecque wrote:
> >
> > bnpham wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting post. Can you tell me (us) which Giap's book was
> > > that? The title? I wonder if anyone else can collaborate this
> > > detail? I do not dismiss your argument John. I just simply
> > > looking for definite proof.
> > >
> >
> > I've been told the name of the book is "How We Won the War" by Vo Nguyen
> > Giap - Paperback - Published 1976.
>
> I guess my next logical request is that if anyone has
> access to this book, please check out the assertion
> and post the original text. I will be looking for
> that book as well. And if I see it, I will sure to
> post it here.
Hi John,
I found the book you mentioned above today in the UW's library.
It is a very short book, and it talks primarily about the communist
victory in 1975. I think I went through the whole book and did
not see the part the article cited.
> > --
> > Semper Fi
> >
> > Jack L
> > http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
> > http://members.aol.com/jitb/usmc/usmc.htm
> > CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
> > My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
> > a United States Marine.
> > "Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
> > they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
> > have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
--
Thuy Reed
>
> Interesting post. Can you tell me (us) which Giap's book was
> that? The title? I wonder if anyone else can collaborate this
> detail? I do not dismiss your argument John. I just simply
> looking for definite proof.
>
>
> > Mike Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > John LaBrecque wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Even General Giap, Commander of NVA forces, admits that after the Tet
> > > > Offensive the NVA was ready to admit defeat.
> > >
> > > I don't believe this is true. Can you back it up?
> >
> > clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and
> > had been continually defeated time and again. By 1968, NVA morale was
> > at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last
> > desperate
> > it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a
> > failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a
> > surrender.
> > Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their
> > defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and
> > correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by
> > the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing
> > that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained
> > access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the
> > grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated
> > the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
> > According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to
> > the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and
> > decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day,
> > week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to
> > achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield.
> > Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were
> > fewer than 10,000.
> >
> > Battalion
> >
> > Semper Fi
> >
> > Jack L
> > http://members.aol.com/jitb/stand.htm
> > http://members.aol.com/jitb/usmc/usmc.htm
> > CIS-[GO ATTNCR]
> > My son, Marc, is now one of the few, the proud,
> > a United States Marine.
> > "Some people live their entire lifetime and wonder if
> > they ever made a difference to the world. Marines don't
> > have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan, January 1995
>
> --
> Please visit the Thai Binh webpages at for extensive coverage of the
> events at Xuan Loc, Thai Binh and else where:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/4417
>
> Photographer Nick Ut said when he took the Napalm girl photograph: "None
> of this would have happened if the Communists had stayed in the north."
Dear Mr. Pham,
You might be able to make your own comparation/verification about this
particular post by reading both Vo Nguyen Giap and Tran van Tra's "Ket
Thuc Cuoc Chien Tranh 30 Nam."
Yours,
Thuy Reed
lthh
"Be gentle, love life, and care for the others."
bnpham
Thuy Reed wrote:
> Dear Mr. Pham,
>
> You might be able to make your own comparation/verification about this
> particular post by reading both Vo Nguyen Giap and Tran van Tra's "Ket
> Thuc Cuoc Chien Tranh 30 Nam."
Can you elaborate, and give your opinion?
However I think you can find many books which does not agree
with the assertion in this post. But sometimes a tiny admission
could say a lot more about what could have been the truth. Bravado
after the fact is nothing new.
> Yours,
>
> Thuy Reed
> lthh
>
> "Be gentle, love life, and care for the others."
--
Allan Browne
Lee wrote in message <72ld3j$9...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>Actually, Herb, *I'm* not having any discussion of Republican or
>Democratic responsibility for the war. Matt's having his own little
>rant.
>I'm sick of hearing that kind of generalistic crap about any single
>party.
>I didn't go to Vietnam while Johnson was president. Nixon sent me.
>And I voted for the bastard.
>It took both parties to get us in, and both to get us out -- but not
>fast enough. Everyone wants to blame everything on the "other"
>political party. It's just bullshit, whichever side does it.
Lee,
Hear! Hear! -- I've always thought that these problems stem from
decisions made in little green rooms in some sub-basement of the Pentagon...
My father (who is 93) favors a quote (from Roosevelt, I think...)...
about "beware of foreign entanglements". Of course, by the time we hear
anything about it, said event is well under way.
Not five hours ago, I saw the lead article in the Philadelphia
Inquirer newspaper (for today, 11/16/98) about Iraq apparently letting U.N.
weapons inspections resume... according to the paper, B52's were flying
Sunday night towards Iraq, and Cruise missles were being readied.
Of course, now that we are civs, I don't expect to hear much till it
reaches the Press... but it is obvious that the decisions were made in the
back rooms... probably by people we did not elect...and maybe do not even
know about. We can only hope "they" know what they're doing.
That was my hope about the "they" of 1965, and probably your hope
too whichever year you got the call. From what I've been able to deduce from
"reading between the lines", I think the Gulf War was run differently
because more of the commanders were allowed more discretion in the field.
As I said once before, imagine the state or fate of the Roman Army
if every command decision has to be sent to Rome for the Emperor's
approval...!!!
In any case, I'll bet the guys on active duty today feel just about
like we did in the 60's ---- like when you climb into a roller coaster in
the amusement park, and start up the first hill: You don't quite know what
to expect, you may or may not be nervous, but you *KNOW* you are in for the
whole ride, whatever happens... and you depend an awful lot on all those
behind-the-scene folks you barely know about...
-Allan
Co. B, 121st Sig. Bn, 1st Infantry Div. Phu Loi, RVN 66-67.