To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132200 ) 5/15/2004 1:45:08 AM From: Bilow Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500 Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "I found it VERY conveniently deceptive how you tried to include the entire border of S. Vietnam, which it shared with 3 different countries, while only discussing the actual border between N and S Korea. " I'm not being "conveniently deceptive". You're being an idiot, as usual. When fighting an insurgency, the border length of interest is the border length over which supplies and material supporting the enemy can be moved. In general, long borders with hostile states are difficult to defend in insurgencies. Re: "Your argument only works if we take into consideration that it was permissible for N. Vietnam to deliberately violate Laotian neutrality and build their Ho Chi Minh trail threw it. " What's your point here? The fact is that the whole border was used to supply insurgents. If you want to discuss some alternative universe where this was not "permissible", then you will have to take into account the full consequences of that alternative universe, not just the one you want. We had no way of stopping Hanoi from violating Laotian neutrality short of invading Laos, and that would undoubtedly have resulted in us fighting against the Laotians. Of course in your twisted version of reality, the Laotions would have welcomed us with open arms, just like the Iraqis did, LOL. No, both Republican and Democratic administrations chose NOT to send significant numbers of US troops into permanent station in Laos for very good reasons. Re: "The North Vietnamese were MORE than willing to violate Laotion neutrality, rendering it mute [LOL!!!] and using it as the means to attack the South from where ever they so desired. " Eventually you're going to have to get used to the concept that the enemy doesn't play by the rules. Tough titty. Re: "As for Iraq, we also don't have to worry about the jungles shrouding the movements of the enemy. There are very few places for them to effectively hide and muster large groups of forces, except in the cities. " Official US military doctrine on counterinsurgency states that cities make excellent places for guerilla forces to hide. I would suggest that you reread those documents more carefully. Re: "And the relatvie security of those cities will come in time. " More promises that have failed over and over before. Here it is mid May and (a) no punishment for the barbecue in Falloujah, (b) US troops still getting shot around there, (c) Sadr still running around loose, and, more importantly, (d) US troops still getting killed, and (e) little progress at getting the UN or anyone else into Iraq. -- Carl