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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"..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
|
|||
|
|||
"..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
|
|||
|
|||
"..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
|
|||
|
|||
"..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
|
|||
|
|||
"..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
|
|||
|
|||
"..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! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"..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, 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"..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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:36:54 -0700 (PDT), dusty wrote:
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." Ah.. the old "thump-my-chest" claim of superiority. Chum... I was serving in Vietnam while you were still trying to get Susie to pull down her knickers in the third grade. I served 20 years in the military, and can prove it. I served the prerequisite year in Vietnam at DaNang AB, on good ol' Monkey Mountain; I served another year in Thailand at Korat RTAB, with thuds taking off every morning, and sometimes a few less coming back in the evening; and I served another two years at Drake AB in Tokyo, where the major military hospital in Japan was located, and the seriously injured military were treated, with kids as young as 19 and 20, in wheelchairs, with clamps on their heads so they could not move their heads because of traumatic spinal cord injuries. And I still have the orders and my retirement certificate from 1 April 1973 to prove it. Who's the anti-American: Well, that would be you. "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 truth doesn't make my anti-American. In fact, I am more patriotic because I see the truth, and accept that it does not make me anti-American to recognize the warts and all in a country I love and honor. 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. That's because you are a fanatic socialist, obsessed with a failed political system which treats humans like pawns. The problem we had with Vietnam was our political and military leaders were filled with personal hubris, and gave no thought to geopolitical or long-term considerations about the far-east. The very fact that there was this deep objection from citizens to that war, points out clearly what there is to love about the deep-rooted morality of so many Americans. My only argument is that we should never have even entered into that war. But once in we certainly never LOST that war. There is not a single instance of any document of surrender by any U.S. combat force in any engagement against the Viet Cong or the NVA. Nor would any such instance show that the U.S. military LOST the war in Vietnam, when considering the numerous defeats of the Viet Cong and the NVA in various military engagements. PS: your fantasy of the fighting ability and organisation of the Vietnamese bears no resemblance to reports by Australians who fought in Vietnam. ROTFLMAO. When cowards argue they generally try to latch onto others who were not. Are you claiming that Australians who fought in Vietnam felt they were outfought by the Viet Cong, and they admit that the Viet Cong were better fighters man-for-man, than they were? The argument is a claim that the U.S. military, with all it's military might LOST the military war in Vietnam. And that argument is a total crock of ****! The Viet Cong admitted that the most frightening part of that war was the B-52, and the fact that they could be walking through the jungle and suddenly find the ground around them exploding with ordnance from the sky. Unannounced, and with no place to hide. How many B-52s did the Viet Cong or the NVA have? During the course of that war how many bombings did North Vietnam receive from the U.S. Air Force? During the course of that war how many bombings did the U.S. receive from the North Vietnam Air Force?? For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S. military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon. Planet Visitor II |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"..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 Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:12:54 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote: For the U.S. military to have lost that war would have required the U.S. military to have combat boots on the ground present to announce a surrender to the NVA. That's how one defines the MILITARY LOSS OF A WAR! There was not a single U.S. combat boot on the ground when the NVA invaded South Vietnam and entered Saigon. In an effort to move this on from a ****ing contest... Assuming the political will to win was there, what you consider a military victory for the USA? An American victory parade in Hanoi seems unlikely. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"..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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:05 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 09:25 PM |
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 5 | February 24th, 2007 04:57 PM |