On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:58:54 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

They had bases, air ops, special ops, etc. throughout and up to
liberation.

Wrong. There was only an embassy staff of military and a few
advisors who were not armed or engaged in any offensive act
toward the Viet Cong or North Vietnam, when North Vietnam
illegally invaded South Vietnam.

The "Vietnamesation" of the war was the result of the
military unable to win. But the "2 1/2 years" as you put it was the
result of the DoD having a losing strategy and unable to complete it's
mission...what ever that was at any given time, but generally to keep
the south of Vietnam carved out of the Vietnamese nation. It failed to
do that.

South Vietnam had been "carved out" of North Vietnam for 2 and 1/2
years; while North Vietnam recovered from Linebacker II, and rearmed
sufficiently to strike out illegally against South Vietnam. What is
interesting is that you SUPPORT illegal war. It makes it likely that
you support in historical terms the Nazi illegal invasion of Poland.
After all, if you support one illegal war, everyone can see that you
have no problem supporting illegal wars.

The U.S. lost the war. We tried to dictate to another people how they
should live. We tried to divide a nation in two thinking that a German
or Korean solution was the answer. Our gov't screwed up and should of
learned the *political* lessons of the French defeat.

Arguing with people like you is like arguing Christ is not the Son of God,
with a Christian.

You spew out some rubbish that you demand be accepted as "fact from
God almighty," then draw your own conclusion and insist that the world is
flat. The 2 and a 1/2 years was a result of a SIGNED peace treaty!!
This is not an opinion, as all your comment are... this is a FACT!!

It is also a FACT that not one U.S. military combat boot had been on
the ground in South Vietnam for 2 and 1/2 years, before the ILLEGAL
invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. Those are irrefutable
FACTS, rather than your obviously biased anti-American opinion.
It takes a lot of chutzpah on your part to ignore those facts, and
develop your own separate *flat-earth* set of facts (sic).

We did not violate that peace treaty; and had North Vietnam not
invaded South Vietnam, South Vietnam *could be* as successful as
South Korea, if it ever managed to eliminate it's corrupt government.
Or do you insist that would be impossible because you think the South
Vietnamese were not as desirous in the 1970s of economic prosperity
as were the South Koreans of 1960?

After all, South Korea did it, and Syngman Rhee is a distant memory,
being removed by a PEACEFUL revolution (the April 19th Student Revolution
of 1960). Are you claiming that the South Vietnamese were ALL
corrupt, and only opposed North Vietnam's illegal invasion because
they were ALL corrupt?? Are you claiming that the South Vietnamese
could have NEVER been as successful as South Korea in ridding herself
of a corrupt government? What an insult to the South Vietnamese!!

So instead you insult the South Vietnamese and the U.S. military; while there
was not a U.S. combat boot on the ground when North Vietnam VIOLATED
the terms of the very agreement THEY were a party to and invaded
North Vietnam.


Planet Visitor II


D.