A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"..on December 30, 1972, after eleven days of those B-52 attacks onthe Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 26th, 2013, 10:11 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
:ПеаБраин
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default "..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
  #2  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:19 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default "..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



  #3  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:00 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default "..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.
  #4  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:58 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
chatnoir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default "..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!
  #5  
Old March 27th, 2013, 06:09 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..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
  #6  
Old March 27th, 2013, 06:55 AM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Poetic Justice
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 324
Default "..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.

  #7  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:49 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
chatnoir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default "..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!

  #8  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:57 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
chatnoir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default "..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!

  #9  
Old March 27th, 2013, 04:02 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
David Walters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default "..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
  #10  
Old March 27th, 2013, 06:21 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
Planet Visitor II[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default "..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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DC rally by conservatives: "tens of thousands?" "three hundredthousand?" "five hundred thousand?" "A million people came?" The only thingagreed upon was that it was a "vast crowd" and it spells big tr O'Donovan, PJ, Himself Europe 16 August 31st, 2010 04:16 AM
"President" B. Hussein Obama "likely" to speak about attempted Xmas09 Muslim terror attack in "next few days" PJ O'Donovan[_3_] Europe 0 December 28th, 2009 01:05 PM
The First 100 days: Will Barack Hussein Obama Say "Ich bin einMuslimer " oder "Ich bin ein Dhimmi ?" PJ O'Donovan Europe 7 January 28th, 2009 10:25 PM
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America PJ O'Donovan[_1_] Europe 5 February 24th, 2007 05:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.