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

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