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
  #21  
Old March 29th, 2013, 07:58 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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

The problem is that there is rarely a pure military victory. I was
quite alive during this period and watch, as *an American* seeing the
US getting it's ass kicked.


You mean in the media. I was there when 50,000 marines in Da Nang
were whipping the **** out of the VC before breakfast, and then eating
them for lunch. Then in the evening listening to Edwin Starr and his
record "War.... who needs it," while smoking a joint. And there is no
group of humans that I respect and admire more than those marines.

Do you really think the media was disposed to favorably support the U.S.
military in Vietnam?? The on-again, off-again bombing strategy of Johnson
only helped North Vietnam time to recover, and time to enhance their air
defenses, which remained inadequate in spite of mounting U.S. losses.
But there never was an air strike which could be argued did less damage to
North Vietnam than it did to the Air Force aircraft which were involved in
that strike.

Not just B-52s, F-105s, A1s, A4s, A6s, and A7s... but helicopters, such as
"the Jolly Green Giant," played a major role in that war, while North Vietnam
and the Viet Cong did not have an "air force." Helicopters were a spectacular
success in operations such as the 1965 la Drang campaign, the relief of
Khe Sanh, and moving the 1st Cav almost immediately during Operation
Liberty Canyon.

Then beginning with Linebacker I and Linebacker II, North Vietnam learned
that when we decided to employ air power against North Vietnam without
so many restrictions they should decide to end the war against the U.S.
It's relatively clear in any historical perspective, that if they had refused to
make that decision, Nixon would have simply upped the use of that air power,
regardless of any losses. Nixon was not the type of person to consider
losses if a strategic gain could be realized.

This is not to argue that what we did has any _moral significance_.
Morality is in the eyes of the beholder. What it does argue and prove is
that the U.S. MILITARY did not lose the war in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War was fought like all wars
as enxtension of politics. And like all "victories" and "defeats" the
military actions have political consequences.


Political consequences are the result of political decisions. Nothing
but that. If an army is equipped to totally overrun an enemy in 24
hours without the loss of a single soldier, and the political arm
decides to not employ that force and simply agrees to the terms set
by the other party (as was somewhat the case in Munich with
Chamberlain in WW II), it can hardly be argued that this agreement
having political consequences meant a MILITARY LOSS by the party
to such an agreement. In that particular case the military loss came
in Dunkirk, but that same military was still the victor in the final outcome
of that war.

So one might argue just the opposite of what you insist... that political
consequences can result in military loss. But it is the military that
must lose the battle, since they are the ones placed in harm's way.
Not Bankers, or Socialists, or Capitalists, or Democrats, or Republicans,
or what-have-you. Military losses are suffered by the Military alone.
The U.S. suffered no such loss in Vietnam. Those are the facts.

The US lost 10 times the
number of troops during WWII. It losts hundred of more planes. Yet the
US, and ONLY because of Russian RED ARMY involvement, was able to
participate in an Allied victory in that war.


A presumption rather than a fact in evidence. I see you're one who
enjoys the belief that you are not only prescient, but able to fashion
the future as you would want it.

[I base point about the brilliant General Giap on an interview he gave
for a Military Channel series on Vietnam]


ROTFLMAO. You really are a TV-junkie, aren't you?

As 10s of thousands of GIs were killed with 6 times that number
injured (or more) the *politics* of this war, without clear
*political* goals, go the American people ****ed off enough to make it
impossible for the US to win...militarily.


The argument is that the U.S. Military LOST the war in Vietnam.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The U.S. military had the
capacity to level North Vietnam to a parking lot. The fact that this
did not happen was because of a POLITICAL decision not to apply
the military to its full capacity.

The goal for Vietnam was to liberate their country from US *military*
occupation.


The goal for North Vietnam was to take control of all Vietnam. As
shown by the fact that Saigon is no longer "Saigon," but "Ho Chi Minh"
city. The goal for South Vietnam never was "democracy." Most of
those who were for "democracy" now live in the U.S.

The Vietnamese WON (thank the gods).


Only after ALL U.S. combat military forces were gone for 2 1/2 years.
When entering a vacuum devoid of military resolve it is obvious what
will result. So big deal. When our military was there not one inch of
South Vietnam had been "conquered" by North Vietnam. And as long
as we had stayed there it is hard to imagine that this would have ever
changed.

I personally feel that "Morally" we should never have entered
into any war in Vietnam. Much of our going in can be attributed to
France, and her belief that the U.S. could be a champion working for
French interests in the far-east. Then "the domino effect" became
the political bobble-head theme. But the idea that the U.S. MILITARY
lost that war???!!! Utter and total anti-American bull****.


Planet Visitor II

David

  #22  
Old March 29th, 2013, 09:37 PM 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...

Planet*Visitor*II wrote;

Do you really think the media was
disposed to favorably support the U.S.
military in Vietnam??


I think they did a wonderful job along with the Anti-War Movement and
Jane Fonda.
Or did *you* have a better plan for *prolonging* the War?

And I suppose *you* would have thought it wonderful to be able to credit
that crook Nixon with ending LBJ's War in his 1st term rather than a
couple of weeks into his 2nd term with a higher death and causality rate
on both sides?

I think it is sad that people like *you* back then and even today never
gives them credit for all they accomplished without *your* support and
help!!!

Regards (with tongue in cheek:-), Walter

----------------------------------------

North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin.* In a
postwar interview with The Wall Street Journal reproduced at length in
'Aid and Comfort',¯ the Colonel, a dedicated Communist cadre for most
of his life, confidant of Ho Chi Minh and the architect of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail¯ along which the North Vietnamese conducted their
aggression against the South, and also one of the first officers of
their army to enter Saigon on the day it fell, had this to say:
*
Wall Street Journal:* Was the American antiwar movement important to
Hanoi's victory?
*
Colonel Bui Tin:* "It was ESSENTIAL to our strategy.* Support for
the war from our rear [China] was completely secure while the American
rear was vulnerable.*
Every day our leadership would listen to world NEWS over the radio at 9
a.m. to follow the growth of the AMERICAN ANTIWAR MOVEMENT.
Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda . . .GAVE US CONFIDENCE THAT
WE SHOULD HOLD ON IN THE FACE OF BATTLEFIELD REVERSES."

[And the Brilliant General Giap mentioned earlier agreed] *

"The identical point was made by North Vietnamese Defense Minister
General Vo Nguyen GIAP, the architect of France's defeat at Dien Bien
Phu.* This was the man most responsible for the Communists military
strategy in their war with the United States."

  #23  
Old March 29th, 2013, 10:21 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...

"aggression against the South"...HAHAHAHA. Attend any Confederate
reenactments of late?

What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic Justice don't get is that in
their attempt to re-fight the Vietnam war, they want to hold high the
'honor' of the US military. This is a joke. No military fights
exclusively as a gun-and-ammo war. The US attempted...actually the US
MILITARY attempted to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Vietnamese
living in the south...AND in this they FAILED, and did so miserably.

The US Military attempted to stomp out the Vietnamese Resistance to
the occupation fo their country and they FAILED.

The US Military attempted to WIN...and they FAILED. What part of
FAILURE don't you understand.

The Military is part and parcel of the overall state structure of the
U.S. that attempted, as a system of political economy, to turn Vietnam
into a colony. That the US Air Force was vastly superior to the
Vietnamese is has absolutely no importance in the way the Vietnamese
*fought* the occupation of their country. Giap, et al simply
understood this better than William Westmoreland, C. LeMay and LBJ.

In the overall battle the Vietnamese won. This means that all
components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
Again.

The U.S. movement was critical to the victory of the Vietnamese though
there was never any actual connection of significance to this. It was
wishful thinking on the part of the Vietnamese gov't that if they
killed enough GIs, downed enough planes, caused the draft of millions
of youth, that the US would blink. Their wishful thinking was part of
this.

I was proud of the Vietnamese gov't defeating my own gov't here in the
U.S. I was only 17 when the Vietnamese liberated what became Ho Chi
Mihn City. I had a cork map of Vietnam and during the offensives,
despite massive bombings by the US in the south of their country, one
by one, each provincial capital fell to the liberation forces.

Just as I would be proud of the White Rose organization had I been a
German youth during WWII fighting for my own gov'ts defeat.

The real cause of the defeat of the US military in Vietnam was the
inability of people like those on this list who grovel in their own
form of self-pity in a vat of blind, know-nothing "patriotism". The
only patriots in this whole conflict where the Vietnamese youth,
workers and peasants who fought the US to a *standstill* and came out
victorious.

  #24  
Old March 30th, 2013, 06:10 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 attack...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:21:02 -0700 (PDT), David Walters wrote:

"aggression against the South"...HAHAHAHA. Attend any Confederate
reenactments of late?


Yeah... I fought for the Union. They are called "Civil War Reenactments,"
not "Confederate Reenactments." But how have those meetings you attend
with Stormfront been going for you?

What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic Justice don't get is that in
their attempt to re-fight the Vietnam war, they want to hold high the
'honor' of the US military. This is a joke.


What a crock of ****... you've forgotten that I denied the U.S. or the
U.S. military had any "honor" in the Vietnam War. It is enough to argue
FACTS rather than "moralist" views, since morality is in the eyes of
the beholder. If the U.S. military did not lose the war that has nothing
to do with "honor," but with facts. It is absurd to argue that the U.S.
MILITARY lost the war, given that military had the capacity to turn
North Vietnam into a parking lot.

"Honor" and "Dishonor," are subjective terms, since the Viet Cong thought
it was "Honor" to use the methods portrayed in "The Deer Hunter," against
American military they captured. In any case, a philosophical question for
you -- Is it better to win with dishonor, or to lose with honor??? What if
losing with honor brings slavery to every person that military fought for?
What if losing with honor means death??

No military fights exclusively as a gun-and-ammo war.


Do you make up these presumed "facts," as you go along? You claim the
Ho Chi Minh trail was superior to the U.S. military material supply line
and the material brought to the U.S. soldier in the field!! You're dreaming,
sonny. You never saw Cam Ranh Bay, when the U.S. military used it to unload
material used for that war.

The US attempted...actually the US
MILITARY attempted to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Vietnamese
living in the south...AND in this they FAILED, and did so miserably.


It was civilian policy to treat the Vietnamese decently. The military's
role is to fight and win, and that's been the role of EVERY military.
Killing a person when not at war is considered homicide, and often
considered murder under certain circumstances. Killing a person when
at war is usually considered heroism with extreme honor. Who are you
to claim you know better than some others? Are you the presumptive
infallible Pope??

The US Military attempted to stomp out the Vietnamese Resistance to
the occupation fo their country and they FAILED.


It did not exist when U.S. combat forces departed. Perhaps you missed
the signing of the Paris Peace Accord between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.
That accord provided for a permanent end to the fighting between North
and South Vietnam. It was signed by North Vietnam, South Vietnam,
and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The fact
that 2 and 1/2 years later, North Vietnam violated the terms of the very
agreement they were a party to does not make the U.S. military losers...
but does make the North Vietnamese guilty of violating a treaty they
were a party to. Where is the "honor" with THAT??

But gee... so did Hitler when he invaded Russia, so what's new?

If you wish to argue that the U.S. military lost the war because our
civilian leaders would no longer commit U.S. military after 2 and 1/2
years, I can argue that the French, the Germans, the Italians, the
Russians, and the Chinese MILITARY lost the war, since THEY didn't
commit their military forces to stop North Vietnam's violation of their
own peace accord. With the signing of that peace accord the U.S.
military had as little further obligation to defend South Vietnam as
did those other nations. How can you possibly have a military that
can lose a war, when there is NO military to lose it?

The US Military attempted to WIN...and they FAILED.


No proof offered. Your claim fails.

What part of FAILURE don't you understand.


Was that a question?? What part of a peace accord, and 2 and a 1/2 years
later don't you understand?

The Military is part and parcel of the overall state structure of the
U.S. that attempted, as a system of political economy, to turn Vietnam
into a colony.


Hardly. We beat Japan and we certainly didn't attempt to turn Japan
into a colony. The only nations that attempted to turn Vietnam into
a "colony" were FRANCE and JAPAN. Learn your history.

That the US Air Force was vastly superior to the
Vietnamese is has absolutely no importance in the way the Vietnamese
*fought* the occupation of their country. Giap, et al simply
understood this better than William Westmoreland, C. LeMay and LBJ.


No proof offered. Your claim fails.

In the overall battle the Vietnamese won. This means that all
components of the US Imperialist attempt to occupy Vietnam failed.
Again.


No proof offered. Your claim fails. But you have started to squawk a
little bit like a chicken.

The U.S. movement was critical to the victory of the Vietnamese though
there was never any actual connection of significance to this. It was
wishful thinking on the part of the Vietnamese gov't that if they
killed enough GIs, downed enough planes, caused the draft of millions
of youth, that the US would blink. Their wishful thinking was part of
this.


No proof offered. Your claim fails.

I was proud of the Vietnamese gov't


You sound a bit like the Viet Cong.

defeating my own gov't here in the U.S.


The U.S. military did not lose the war in Vietnam. Get that through your
silly childish head. Just how many bombs did North Vietnam drop on
New York City??? Or Los Angeles?

I was only 17


And still trying to get Susie to drop her knickers for you. What a
loser.

when the Vietnamese liberated what became Ho Chi Mihn City.


2 and 1/2 years after the last U.S. combat soldier left Vietnam. What
a _great victory_ when the enemy isn't there!! You really believe that
North Vietnam signed that peace treaty because they had the U.S.
military on the run. ROTFLMAO. Three men and a large dog could
have overrun South Vietnam 2 and 1/2 years AFTER every U.S. combat
military had departed Vietnam. Remember all those helicopters that
were thrown off of aircraft carriers when South Vietnam was overrun,
that the media managed to cover over and over? They were not ours...
they belonged to the South Vietnamese Army and Air Force, and we
would have never seen them again in any case. Except for the fact that
the VIETNAMESE used them to escape from the conquering hordes of
North Vietnamese taking revenge on South Vietnamese who did not
fall on their knees in prayer before the "conquering" North Vietnamese.
Tell me about "honor." If all the Vietnamese had welcomed the North
Vietnamese why was there such a crowd in front of the U.S. embassy?
The North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam was followed by a
blood bath.... but then that's what you see as "honor."

Here's food for thought about that blood bath, which was delayed a
bit immediately after the conquest until the media found Vietnam not
that interesting any longer. See --
http://jim.com/ChomskyLiesCites/When...in_Vietnam.htm
Quote -- "THE BLOODBATH is motivated not so much by hatred or
revenge as by the necessity for the Communist system to purge itself
of undesirable elements From a Marxist viewpoint political purge is a
necessity in order to achieve political purity, a precondition to the
building of socialism. Political purity ensures single mindedness, which
in turn achieves high efficiency. The Vietnamese Communists, as they
showed in their conduct of the war, are doctrinaire single minded,
efficient. But not until all Vietnamese—men, women, and children think
the Communist way will political purity be achieved for the new nation
as a whole. This is why indoctrination “re-education” as they call it—is
of prime importance. For those who are too old or too stubborn to
change elimination is the only alternative."
Unquote.

So what brought about that bloodbath... he says it was _good ol' Socialism_.

I had a cork map of Vietnam and during the offensives,
despite massive bombings by the US in the south of their country, one
by one, each provincial capital fell to the liberation forces.


Sounds like you needed a pet, rather than a hobby using corks. In any
case, you did no such thing, since no U.S. military bombing took place
in North or South Vietnam following the Paris Peace Accord. The U.S.
combat role did not EXIST! The violation of that Peace Accord was
strictly a decision made by North Vietnam (which you consider "with
honor," no doubt). At no time during the invasion of South Vietnam
by North Vietnam did the U.S. military take any combat role, on the
ground or in the air. I think you're actually a 17-year-old, leaving a
life of fantasy, since you're certainly lying in this particular comment
of yours.

Just as I would be proud of the White Rose organization had I been a
German youth during WWII fighting for my own gov'ts defeat.


Talk is cheap. Just how many years were you in the U.S. military??

The real cause of the defeat of the US military in Vietnam was the
inability of people like those on this list who grovel in their own
form of self-pity in a vat of blind, know-nothing "patriotism". The
only patriots in this whole conflict where the Vietnamese youth,
workers and peasants who fought the US to a *standstill* and came out
victorious.


It appears that you just picked out words at random to form that
comment. It doesn't seem like you've progressed intellectually since
that hobby you had with the corks. You certainly have a very loose
grasp of English, considering you use the word "where" when the
word "were," is appropriate. Giving two entirely different meanings
to your comment above, you silly child.

Happy to Help.

Planet Visitor II

  #25  
Old March 30th, 2013, 04:53 PM 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...

David Walters wrote;

What Planet Visitor II and the Poetic
Justice don't get is that in their attempt to
re-fight the Vietnam war,


And what you "don't get" is your attempt to re-live the anti-war Hippie
days that you were too young to be a part of.

You turn 55 this year, tell me when was the last time you heard anyone
in person use those Hippie-era terms that you have brought back from the
60's-early 70's?

"liberate their country" "US *military*
occupation" "US mercenary army"
"Vietnamese Resistance" "occupation fo
their country" "turn Vietnam into a colony"
"US Imperialist" "liberation forces" "The
only patriots in this whole conflict where
the Vietnamese youth, workers and
peasants"


Not from your relatives or friends unless you have college age friends
playing Communists until they go out into the corporate world?

I haven't heard those BS quotes since my high school friends and I would
go to the nearby Ivy League University for outdoor concerts and anti-war
protests just to get the Hippies to buy us booze, smoke their dope and
try to bang a Hippie chick (unsuccessful but did get 2 out of the 3).

And guess where those Hippie Ivy League rich kids are today ~43yrs
later?
Well one thing is for certain they are not quoting Mao or Uncle Ho in
their corporate boardroom meetings.

Unlike you they have grown-up but you are still a 17yr old boy sticking
push-pins in a cork map.

Your grasp of history is bias by your theology (the NV Communists are
the liberators and heros in this conflict even though they broke a Peace
Treaty and *invaded* SV).

That theology has killed more innocent civilians in Genocides in the
20thC then Hitler could ever dream of.
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc.

I'm out of this with you but to paraphrase you "...the inability of
people like those on this list who grovel in their own form of self-pity
in a vat of blind, know-nothing ["Idealism"] sums it up nicely.

  #26  
Old March 30th, 2013, 07:23 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
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 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.

  #27  
Old April 1st, 2013, 02:06 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 Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill wrote:

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.


It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
Vietnam. That 2 and 1/2 years AFTER the last American combat boot,
and the last air attack over South or North Vietnam by the U.S. military
had taken place, North Vietnam stabbed South Vietnam in the back is
hardly sufficient for North Vietnam to claim anything or hold a parade
for any reason.

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.


Planet Visitor II
  #28  
Old April 1st, 2013, 12:46 PM posted to soc.retirement,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,rec.travel.europe
bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
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 Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:06:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill wrote:

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.


It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
Vietnam.


You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
here.

I remember the headlines at the time.

And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.
  #29  
Old April 1st, 2013, 03:35 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 attackson the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

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. The US could *not* defeat Vietnam militarily
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.

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

Dinosaur historians as you've all seen here love to argue that US
never 'lost', as if abstracting battles and engagement constitutes a
"war". War is, as Clausewitz, politics by other means. Who won?
Vietnam. Who lost? The U.S. And the world was better off for it.

David
  #30  
Old April 1st, 2013, 03:37 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 attacks on the Hanoi area, you had won the war. It was over..."

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:46:53 +0100, Bill wrote:

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:06:23 -0400, Planet Visitor II
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:23:06 +0000, Bill wrote:

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.


It was held in Paris, when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong
capitulated to the U.S. regarding the sovereignty and security of South
Vietnam.


You're not dealing with some snotty kid still wet behind the ears
here.


Hippies were well fortified with their own invented facts. After all,
they were spitting on the combat military being withdrawn from Vietnam.

I remember the headlines at the time.


Ah, yes... the good ol' media. Dan Rather and Co.

And at the time everyone was fully aware that it was a conference
cynically designed to get the US out of Vietnam and South Vietnam, who
didn't get a voice at the conference, would be left to rot.


"Everyone"??? Gee... you know a lot about how "everyone" felt.
Perhaps you should read what you consider your "sentence" again.
Since you seem a bit confused as to "who didn't get a voice at
the conference."

Let's cut to the chase. Are you claiming that the U.S. military LOST
the war in Vietnam, in the face of for 2 and a half years not having
a single combat boot on the ground, and not having dropped a single
bomb in any air strike on North or South Vietnam???

Just check the box... since everyone has an "opinion" --

Yes _________

No __________


Planet Visitor II
 




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 02:10 PM.


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