Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (147866)	10/14/2004 3:49:10 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 281500

Hello Bruce. I see that once again we only partially agree. Let me comment on our areas of disagreement. 3. The NVA could largely determine the times, places and levels of intensity? Yes. Undoubtedly. During the entire conflict from 1960 on, we essentially respected their territorial integrity. They had "sanctuary" in the North. You overlook the fact that our enemies also had sanctuary in the South. They were not all NVA, some were VC fighters and were Southerners who lived with the population. Many of the NVA were hidden out in the South in jungles. Many of their sanctuaries were in no-fly zones. Sometimes when we went into those areas we got hit so hard we had to pull out. The cost was just too high and we sometimes didn't have artillery fire support near enough to effectively support us. 4. "In the interim" the actions we took incensed the local population? No. After Tet, the U.S. essentially disengaged and stayed in their large bases. (I was there!) South Vietnam was stable in those years and Americans could walk around Saigon and even outlying areas such as Cu Chi in relative safety. I'm sorry to say that you're simply wrong on this one. We did not "disingage" and stay on large bases. We put our infantry to work on "search and destroy" missions whose goal was to create contact with a hidden and entrenched enemy. The proof is in the level of casualties and the reported fact that 80% of the war's casualties occurred in the 25,000 men in those 50 infantry battalions. Our casualties after 68 Tet were very high. In the mid 69 to mid 70 year that I was there we were suffering several hundreds of dead every week; some of the highest rates of the war. But yes, Cu Chi, Cameron Bay, Saigon, Bien Hua and many more of the populated areas could be considered "safe," if by that you mean that our enemies did not contest such areas. THE SOUTH LOST, NOT BECAUSE OF AN UPRISING OF LOCALS, BUT BECAUSE MAINFORCE NVA BATTALIONS CAME SOUTH - IN VIOLATION - OF THE PARIS ACCORDS OF APRIL 1973 - AND DEFEATED THE WEAKER WILLED ARVN. NO DIFFERENT FROM THE GERMANS DEFEATING THE FRENCH IN MAY 1940. Yes, the "South" lost. But what was the "South?" Was it the puppet government we'd set up? Was it a part of the whole of Vietnam that we'd prevented the country from VOTING to unite? Was it the VC and their many supporters who'd fought us for years? It certainly wasn't the "thing" we'd decided it should be and spent almost 60,000 American lives to create. There's a lesson in there somewhere. And of course we did "win the peace." Vietnam is a trading partner and poses NO threat to America or its strategic interests. I wonder how many of the critics of our "losing" that war have some kind of rationale for why we should have continued to fight it? Ed

To: Bruce L who wrote (147866)	10/20/2004 5:55:30 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

The NVA won the battle of wills? Yes, they were the better soldiers. Better then those in the South yes. Better then the Americans?? If that's what you mean I would have to disagree. Americans, in effect, fought the war for 12 years while the South Vietnamese stood around. That isn't really true. The ARVN took more casualtees then the US did. They fought during those 12 years. Not in any coordinated way that could possibly lead to victory but they did fight. I guess some of them did "stand around", and others went to fight but broke easily when things didn't go well, but not all of them. THE SOUTH LOST, NOT BECAUSE OF AN UPRISING OF LOCALS, BUT BECAUSE MAINFORCE NVA BATTALIONS CAME SOUTH - IN VIOLATION - OF THE PARIS ACCORDS OF APRIL 1973 - AND DEFEATED THE WEAKER WILLED ARVN. NO DIFFERENT FROM THE GERMANS DEFEATING THE FRENCH IN MAY 1940. That's something a lot of people don't realize. Many, esp. on the left, talk about the Vietnamese Communist defeating the US in a guerilla war which we supposedly didn't know how to fight. They downplay or ignore the fact that we won all the battles (including the battles during the Tet Offensive, where the communist were crushed), and they don't seem to even think about (or perhaps know about) the North's invasion after the Paris Accords. Tim