On Mar 27, 4:09*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. *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


"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."

Who's the anti-American:

"If there had been no "Peace" accord, our military leaders would have
simply continued to murder innocent people along with our own military
being killed and we would have remained there until at least
1980. ...a society sick at our moral core"


The mass opposition to the war, already apparent in the early
seventies would have exploded had the war continued "...until at least
1980" as the body bags carrying the precious corpses were flown in in
increasing numbers and the American economy got into deeper and deeper
crisis as the costs of the war spiralled. That mass opposition of
Americans is given no credit by you at all. You prefer to blame the
war on "Americans" rather than nail the banker-capitalists as its root
cause. That makes you a fake patriotic hiding the crimes of the ruling
class.


PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the
Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought
in Vietnam.