"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks onthe Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
"..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 |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Mar 27, 8:11*am, :ПеаБраин wrote:
"..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 Such was the "defeat" suffered by the Vietnamese at the hands of the 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 **** for five years than to eat Chinese **** for the rest of my life." Ho Chi Minh "It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me." Ho Chi Minh |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Mar 27, 10:19*am, dusty wrote:
On Mar 27, 8:11*am, :ПеаБраин wrote: "..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 Such was the "defeat" suffered by the Vietnamese at the hands of the 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 **** for five years than to eat Chinese **** for the rest of my life." Ho Chi Minh "It was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me." Ho Chi Minh And as to the motives that drove the US invasion of Vietnam and what 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. |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Mar 26, 3:11*pm, :ПеаБраин wrote:
"..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 Looks like it was lost in the end! Only the removal of the crook Nixon stopped the bombing! |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote:
On Mar 26, 3:11*pm, :???????? wrote: "..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 Looks like it was lost in the end! Only the removal of the crook Nixon stopped the bombing! 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 |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52attack...
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. |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Mar 26, 11:55*pm, (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 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. Except for Nixon the traitor who told the South Vietnamese not to 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. Was not aware Nixon ended it. Remember the North Vietnamese invasion after the Nixon crook was removed! |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."
On Mar 26, 11:09*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: On Mar 26, 3:11*pm, :???????? wrote: "..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 Looks like it was lost in the end! * Only the removal of the crook Nixon stopped the bombing! 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. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...m-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." *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- 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! |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
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 |
"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attack...
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:02:48 -0700 (PDT), David Walters 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" 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.'' Pardon me, but General Giap would hardly be the one to admit that 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, Could we have that in English? Obviously your views must be seen as slanted since you're not an American. (12 in one day!) was too great to bear and *appeared* to have no effect. From 1942 onward the U.S. lost an AVERAGE of 170 planes a day. Did 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. No proof offered. Your claim fails. 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). You mean after the U.S. military withdrew her military forces from Vietnam. 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? The U.S. military never did "give up." And in fact, our military leaders would 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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TravelBanter.com