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 (183864)	3/21/2006 3:18:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Hawk, your post never rebutted a single point I made in my post. Oh Jesus Weeps!! The hll I didn't. You asserted (or have asserted in the past) that Vietnam was a civi war that was initiated because Diem refused to honor national election in both the North and South. Vietnam was a civil in the same manner that the Korean War was. Two separate power factions supported by the Cold Warriors, the US and USSR. Furthermore, NV invaded two neutral countries from which to carry out its invasion of the RVN. That's a fact!! Yet the UN did nothing about it because they didn't have the will to engage in fighting another Korean style war. Thus, while the UNSC saw the blatant aggression of N. Korea as a threat to international peace, apparently they could muster the will to grant the same status to the conflict between NV and the RVN. But the UN had an obligation to preserve the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia and failed to act. That's a fact!! HISTORY, not me, has shown that Ho Chi Minh and his minions NEVER PLANNED on holding free and fair elections. They haven't held one since 1975, and it's unlikely they will hold one anytime in the near future. The fact that many RVN soldiers and politicians found themselves locked up in "re-education" camps made it clear that the only political system that would be preserved would be Marxist/Leninist. It makes no difference that their economy is doing better on the backs of seeing export markets open up for their goods. Their governmental and political power still depends upon Foreigners. For decades, Vietnam was an economic basketcase. Only by the example of China opening up its economy did the Vietnamese see the need to do the same thing. Were foreign markets to be denied to them in the future, they would ONCE AGAIN, become the an economic basket case. In the years we were helping them several million of them DIED.* No sht!! Millions of these were NVA soldiers who had invaded to the south. We killed an estimated 3 million NVA operating in S. Vietnam. And don't forget that the NVA were even more brutal than the RVN when it came to "pacification". Many, if not most, of those RVN civilians were killed by NVA. Those who weren't killed, were kow-towing to the NVA because we failed to protect them. I also showed you that, contrary to your belief that major military operations could be conducted in Laos, that the NVA SOMEHOW* managed to do so, to the tune of having over 10,000 trucks on the HCM trail, Tanks, and petroleum pipeline. So give me a friggin' break. Too many men died to have that history shanghaied by "SUPER PATRIOTS" like yourself who try to contort every fact in an effort to justify the latest meat grinder war. Goddamn right too many GOOD MEN died because our military strategies and political policies were incompetent. We chose to permit the enemy to dictate the time and place of battle, as well permitting them to choose the circumstances. That is a violation of one of the major tenets of war. Furthermore, we provided the NVA the advantage of interior lines, and a a relatively uninterdicted supply line. Safe behind the Laotian and Cambodian borders they didn't have to face a concentrated US/RVN presence because we were too damn busy trying to protect the entire shared border between Cambodia, Laos, and the RVN. Thus, I'm telling you that damn good men died based upon a lack of will and coherent strategy. Let me ask you something.. During the early days of the Korea War, the UN forces were bottled up around Pusan. What exactly created the rout by the N. Koreans? Wasn't it our landing at Inchon, which threatened to cut off the N. Korean army in the south? Don't you think that possibly, just possibly, the same kind of strategy might have worked in Vietnam? Cut off that supply line just north of the DMZ, and extend it to the Thai border, if necessary. Then we would only have had to defend a limited front, and would have been able to concentrate our firepower in a narrow area. At least the very threat of such an attack would have caused the NVA to hesitate and leave more of their forces to defend the homeland. But no... it was people like you, weak-willed and incrementalist, who are more than willing to pull the rug out from under the feet of our soldiers, telling them they can't win when in fact you aren't willing to permit them to win because they have to worry about "maintaining popular support".. Grow up and face the facts. Many "ISMS" are not that bad. Government can create a horrible existence for their citizens, even democratic governments. Take a good look at some of the Central American govs or, if you'd like a closer look, take a glance at the democratic history of Haiti. It depends on the leaders of the governments, the culture of the nation and a host of other factors. Yeah... doesn't this just sum your opinion up for all to see. You're more than willing to support tyrannical regimes and tolerate the oppression and genocide, so long as you're not bother with it. And it was this very same mentality that kept us from recognizing the threat of Nazism and Imperial Japan until it was too late to avoid a major conflagration which cost the lives of TENS OF MILLIONS. All because you can't be bothered with "unwinnable wars"... Well Ed, from my impression of your dysfuntional logic, EVERY WAR is unwinnable and we have no business being involved in one. And even though we were attacked by a terrorist group harbored by the Taliban of Afghanistan, that war is obviously unwinnable as well since fighting is still going on there. So I guess we should have overthrown the Taliban.. Maybe we could have just placed economic sanctions on them, eh?? Hawk