attention whore, booo...
Yooo Hooo... I'm over HERE!!!
Posted on 11/09/2009 3:37:10 PM PST by mojito
We must dispense with a dangerous myth. In an effort to pressure the president to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, armchair commanders have dusted off the old canard that "we could have won in Vietnam if only … " Some revisionists contend we could have won "if only" Congress had not balked at the military's insatiable hunger for more troops and more bombing. Others argue that pacification of the countryside and training of Vietnamese soldiers could have carried the day "if only" we had stuck with these policies longer. Still others argue that we could have won "if only" President Johnson had made a much stronger American commitment when he first decided to send combat troops in 1965.
Let me be clear: more than 58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies. Yes, we adopted smarter tactics near the end, but by then the die was cast. History has definitively branded Vietnam for the mistake it was—no one should believe that the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and at least 1.5 million Vietnamese were somehow not quite enough.
So what should we learn from Vietnam? The lessons aren't simple, particularly when applied to a very different country—with a vastly different history, culture, and geography—in a different era. But some comparisons with Afghanistan are apt.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
could you contact the mod to add “barf alert”?
To this day, many people simply do not realize that South Vietnam fell to a large scale conventional invasion from the North [I wonder if JK is one of ‘em]. They did not fall to the Viet Cong. In fact, by 1972, the VC were a spent force. In 1975, the US chose to do nothing while this conventional invasion took place. It is true, however, that the ARVN literally fell apart against this onslaught. However, if we brought our superior fire power to bear, it might have saved the South.
WE could have one if we didn’t have traitors like John (Horse face) Kerry in our midst.
But we know that pathological personality disorders like Lurch just don't learn-- from experience, their elders, or anywhere else. So sail on, Jean Francoise, your sails full of your own hot air, and don't let the siren songs of "the global test" lead you on to the rocks..
PING!
And I will explain in one word how it could of been won.
A-Bomb.
John F’n Kerry served in Vietnam, did you know?
Odd. Kerry didn’t mention the genocide his communist allies committed after the US abandoned South Vietnam.
I’m sure it was just an oversight.
Then as now John Kerry is providing inestimable service to our enemies. Any review of his service record should include the years 1970 and 1971 in which he performed services for Jane Fonda and her allies of far greater importance than his four months of service for the U.S. Navy.
People should consider his uncorroborated testimony before Congress about how I and others of TF116, committed unspeakable atrocities against the South Vietnamese, and his appearance at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris. His services were so valuable the North Vietnamese recognized them in their war memorial in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon).
His Congressional testimony was so enduring that it marginalized accounts of such facts that our boats and ships were ordered not to return fire from the village of Nam Can as they transited to and from Seafloat/Solid Anchor. We were expected to gut it out through the kill zone, because the village was designated by us as a sanctuary from the war for civilians.
Colonel Bui Tin of NVA General Staff in the August 3, 1995 Wall Street Journal says their forces suffered a military defeat with staggering and surprising losses nearly wiping them out. The losses were largely inflicted by a South Vietnamese Army, which abandoned families and returned to units during the supposed Chinese New Year ceasefire. The Rand Corporation quickly confirmed and published reports of the disaster, which Colonel Bui Tin admitted in the Wall Street Journal story.
However, he said all political objectives were achieved proving America a wealthy, but irresolute nation. They were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress proclaimed American actions shameful and pledged unity with the NVA, following Walter Cronkite’s “quagmire” sound bite effectively burying the Rand report. A Democratic Congress sealed South Vietnam’s fate by refusing to rebuild or support its armed forces after they again destroyed General Giap’s army in 1972.
Essentially the United States helped the South Vietnamese win the war twice and then abandoned them.
There has always been a mis-presumption that Kerry’s testimony was “official”.
He, nor anybody else, was never sworn in.
attention whore, booo...where is the 180?
With 100,000 men just like him I have no doubt that John Kerry could have lost the war in record time.
Allowing our forces to engage in total war without political limitations would have meant not even needing the bomb.
A nation that can crush Germany without the a-bomb can certainly crush a stone age culture. Bomb the cities...problem solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.