On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

On Mar 31, 6:06*pm, Planet Visitor II wrote:

In point of fact, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong "blinked first" by
returning to the peace table, knowing full well that if they didn't they
would suffer an enormous destruction from the air with a Linebacker
III.

"Blinked"? Hahahaha. They knew *exactly* what they did and the fake
'blink' was the US blinking thinking it had expunged the sovereignty
of the Vietnamese people.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

The US could *not* defeat Vietnam militarily

You are obviously trying to refer to "North Vietnam," but the spittle
rolled off of your lower lip onto your hand over the keyboard and in
the process of wiping it away you neglected to specific which part
of Vietnam you were referring to.

In any case, your comment is all bull****. The U.S. MILITARY had
ALREADY brought North Vietnam to her knees with Linebacker II.

but they could force them to the negotiating table. The Vietnamese
needed the extra time, and, they didn't feel any form of "Treaty" that
was being forced down their throat was at all legit, given the sheer
number of civilian deaths in the north and south of the country.

Now you're just babbling incoherently.

The US had zero right to negotiate a damn thing and deservedly got
booted out of Vietnam along with their puppet government.

Prove it. Since if that were the case, North Vietnam would have not
negotiated with the U.S. regarding a peace treaty. The North
Vietnamese seemed to believe the U.S. had a right to negotiate,
as did the Viet Cong. Who are you to tell the North Vietnamese
what to believe??

The US was
defeated politically which means that all aspects of the war there
were defeated, including the *total inability* of the US war machine
to *win*. The military *lost* as much as the political side lost, as
they were one and the same.

No proof offered. Your claim fails.

Dinosaur historians as you've all seen here love to argue that US
never 'lost', as if abstracting battles and engagement constitutes a
"war".

Gee... a kill ratio of 10 to 1 tends to argue there was a "war," and
the side killing 10 to losing 1... was the winner.

War is, as Clausewitz, politics by other means.

That's why the North Vietnamese came to the political peace agreement
in Paris.

Who won?

The question regards the claim that the U.S. MILITARY lost the
war. If it was politics, it wasn't the U.S. MILITARY. The U.S.
MILITARY is lawfully prohibited from MAKING political decisions.
They can only advise. After all, remember that Truman sacked
MacArthur.

Vietnam.

You mean North or South??? You're babbling again.

Who lost? The U.S. And the world was better off for it.

No proof offered. Your claim fails. But it's interesting you speak
of Clausewitz. Was he in favor of illegal wars? Because you obviously
are! How about that Hitler invasion of Russia while there was a
"peace treaty" between the two? Support one illegal war with a
peace treaty in existence being violated... support all illegal war with
a peace treaty in existence being violated.

Planet Visitor II

David