Replies

hey listen skull stomper; and everyone else really;

What I was trying to say all along on this thread is that the historical evidence is that we won that war militarilly. People from foreign countries like to remind americans that we lost vietnam war. I don't care what they think, but it's false. We won militarilly. We decided to pull outpolitically.

Your witnessing on this proves the point as well as mine. The statistics really do show that fighting started out hard in late 64, climbed to a peak in 67/68 at tet obviously. Then after that there was fighting by americans until 72 or so, but it was not throughout the country and was not nearly so much statistically. The nva pulled the large bulk of their resources back after tet. They stayed at home and nurtured new soldiers until after we left. They only put forth enough of an effort in the south to pre-empt any political movement made in washington to send our troops north to finish them off. If we'd followed them to the north and brought in fresh boots to boot in the second half of 68, as in a normal war, then we'd have won that war politically as well as militarilly.

It was our choice to lose all along. Our soldiers/sailors/airmen did their job.

Another little known fact. The only prominent politician in 1963-64 to say anything even cautious about our vietnam involvement was barry goldwater. He said he didn't want it to be a half-effort war effort to tie as in Korea. Goldwater is more famous for being a war-monger because in an interview a journalist asked him, 'well would you rule out using nukes?', he said 'no'. The next day newspapers all over the country branded goldwater as promoting nuclear weapons use in vietnam. That was in 64.

The politics of that war were all dem leaders were for the war in the early days. Only goldwater was cautious and would not outright endorse it until after it started. Then after the war got tough in 68 it was the dems who wanted to cut and run.

In 67 & 68 the pentagon tried to get dem president lbj to let south vietnamese be trained and equiped by us to supplement our efforts in the war. LBJ wouldn't allow it. Republican president nixon in 69 finally began immediately to train and equipment south's soldiers to fight that war. President lbj preferred to use americans than south vietnamese to fight when he had the choice.

Democrats got us in that war, screwed it up and republicans would've saved the war if congress would've let them. But democrat congress literally pulled the financing plug on the south. That is the big thing the media has sheltered everyone from. Of course they're going to fail without money.

We could've fought that war with considerably fewer casualties if we'd used south vietnamese heavily in 64 to fight parallel to us. They sacrificed american lives without thinking. Then, they imposed stragic restriction of not letting troops go to north and win which is going to guarantee failure against a determined enemy. If we'd funded the south and provided air support when needed, we should've trained and equiped their air force to defend themselves. Only a few years of this type of effort and vietnam as well as loas cambodia would've been free and avoided the bloodbaths.

Even as it played out, our efforts still saved thailand malaysia singapore and indonesia too from communism. just as in ww2 we fought a war for freedom in europe, at the end half of europe was free half was not. in southeast asia we fought a war for freedom in se asia. in the end half of se asia was free half was not.

I can imagine how you got that name skull stomper.