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: cnyndwllr who wrote (148661)	10/22/2004 2:02:22 PM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<As for me, I think a better indication is that although we provided an amazing amount of arms, training, supplies and support for the South Vietnamese, including sending over 50,000 men to die over there, the South could not find the courage or the means to fight an effective defensive war against a much more poorly armed North Vietnam.>> My brother: In the early JFK years (1961 -1964), as the American mobilization escalated,President Diem "hoarded" his troops against the (very real) eventuality of a threat to his regime. Officers who had casualties were penalized. All the risk and the fighting were pushed onto the newly arrived Americans. Later, under LBJ American generals enthusiastically asked the Vietnamese to step aside while they 'showed them how it was done.' This above conclusions are documented in Sheenan's, "A Bright Shining Lie" which in turn relies on the notes and letters of John Paul Vann. So the South Vietnamese Army got used to the Americans 'holding their hands. This was a big part of their problem. As to why the South Vietnamese Army in 1974 -1975 could not find "the courage or the means" to put up an effective defense against the NVA, the simple answer (AGAIN) is that the NVA were better fighters than those from the South; just as the Germans were better fighters than the French. Your observation that the NVA were numerically inferior to the South Vietnamese is just FLAT WRONG. When the NVA broke through at Pleiku, they were lead by a regiment of HEAVY Tanks - supplied by the USSR. The SVA had nothing to match them. But even if the SVA was superior in numbers and equipment to the NVA, what would this prove? The French and British in 1940 were superior in every category of armament with the sole exception of fighters. MILITARY SUPERIORITY DOES NOT EQUATE TO MORAL SUPERIORITY IMO. Bruce