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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (12220)	8/31/1998 2:14:00 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

South Vietnam remained free for two years after we pulled out our combat troops in early '73. The '74 "Watergate" Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam, leaving them without ammunition or gasoline for their Army. In 1975 the NVA launched a conventional, massive armor attack into South Vietnam. They defeated the South with conventional tactics, which they had never dared to use against the US after they got severely beaten trying it in 1965. Guerilla tactics didn't conquer South Vietnam. The fact is that the North didn't stand a chance against an American invasion. We weren't the French. We had massive airpower, and massive armor if we had chosen to use it. The NVA's military assets would have been eliminated by taking the war to them. Their tank columns would have been reduced to scrap. They could have played guerilla in the boondocks eating roots until they ran out of supplies, which without the port of Haiphong would have been very soon. They would have had no sanctuary, no supply base, no regular source of food. Yeah, they would have been a real threat.