Iraq: Learning The Lessons Of Vietnam - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-28-2005, 03:55 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:32 AM
FatBrachtney,
Insulting other posters, for instance by calling them offensive names and telling them to grow up isn't acceptable in FYM. Your views are welcome but in accordance with the rules of the forum you agreed to when you signed up, you need to express those views without insulting others.

Thanks,
*Fizz.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 10:17 AM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
One more thing, calling someone a name or telling them to grow up, is against the Faq/Rules which one is suppost to agree to abide by when you become a member of this forum. If one has not read the faq/Rules one should so that do not find themselves out of line with the rest of the forum.

Had the United States not prematurely withdrawn from South Vietnam and then cut of funding to the country after 1973, South Vietnam would still be an independent country today as prosperous as South Korea.

The fact is, by 1972, the South Vietnamese were doing 90% of the fighting on the ground and were winning with American aid and Airpower. The Easter offensive by North Vietnam in 1972 was a failure and was thrown back by the South Vietnamese with the aid of US Airpower and US military advisors. Had these factors still been in place in 1975, the North Vietnamese offensive that year would have been crushed as well. [/B]


The end RESULT?

4 Million dead Vietnamese.

Not ALL of the 4 Million tonnes of high explosives dropped on S.Vietnam hit "empty forests".

In any event-it would appear as though you are in a agreement with certain parties so I will refrain from any further comments.

Don't want to hurt anyones feewings....snivel...
__________________

__________________
FatBratchney is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:19 PM   #18
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 09:32 AM
If the United States had launched a full-scale invasion of North Vietnam the war would have been over in a fairly short amount of time.

However, the Johnson administration did not want to risk another Chinese incursion like we saw during the Korean War.

This essentially hamstrung the U.S. military who resorted to aerial bombardment in the North and rural pacification in the South in an effort to destroy North Vietnam's will to fight.

The U.S. did not lose the war because of a lack of manpower. It lost because of politics...the same reason why it may lose in Iraq.
__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 12:54 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by japes4
If the United States had launched a full-scale invasion of North Vietnam the war would have been over in a fairly short amount of time.

However, the Johnson administration did not want to risk another Chinese incursion like we saw during the Korean War.

This essentially hamstrung the U.S. military who resorted to aerial bombardment in the North and rural pacification in the South in an effort to destroy North Vietnam's will to fight.

The U.S. did not lose the war because of a lack of manpower. It lost because of politics...the same reason why it may lose in Iraq.
Maybe you could take the time to explain in detail-on what pretext would the USA have to invade/bomb N.Vietnam starting at the 1954 Geneva Convention in which the USA refused to allow FREE elections in Vietnam.

At least 5oo ooo US Soldiers ended up in Vietnam after the faked Gulf of Tonkin inceident.
500 000 men/MORE armaments dropped my the USA then was dropped in WW2/countless brutal "search and destroy" missions like Speedy Express INSIDE SOUTH VIETNAM...4 Million dead Vitenamese...and YOU SAY the US Military was "hamstrung"?





Wow...
__________________
FatBratchney is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 01:48 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FatBratchney


Maybe you could take the time to explain in detail-on what pretext would the USA have to invade/bomb N.Vietnam starting at the 1954 Geneva Convention in which the USA refused to allow FREE elections in Vietnam.

At least 5oo ooo US Soldiers ended up in Vietnam after the faked Gulf of Tonkin inceident.
500 000 men/MORE armaments dropped my the USA then was dropped in WW2/countless brutal "search and destroy" missions like Speedy Express INSIDE SOUTH VIETNAM...4 Million dead Vitenamese...and YOU SAY the US Military was "hamstrung"?





Wow...
Most of the 4 million Vietnamese who died, died as a result of the actions of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. What pretext did North Vietnam have to force a Communist dictatorship on people that wanted to live in freedom. The Vietcong directly targeted South Vietnamese civilians.

Once again, the whole "More bombs dropped by the USA in Vietnam than in World War II is an irrelevant statistic".

What is very relevant are the constraints under which the United States had to operate. Not allowed to invade North Vietnam, large area's of North Vietnam off limits for bombing. Had the United States launched Linebacker II in 1965, as opposed to 1972, and continued such a bombing campaign as needed combined with developing and the South Vietnamese military, the war could have ended earlier with South Vietnam remaining independent.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:17 PM   #21
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Most of the 4 million Vietnamese who died, died as a result of the actions of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. What pretext did North Vietnam have to force a Communist dictatorship on people that wanted to live in freedom. The Vietcong directly targeted South Vietnamese civilians.

Once again, the whole "More bombs dropped by the USA in Vietnam than in World War II is an irrelevant statistic".

What is very relevant are the constraints under which the United States had to operate. Not allowed to invade North Vietnam, large area's of North Vietnam off limits for bombing. Had the United States launched Linebacker II in 1965, as opposed to 1972, and continued such a bombing campaign as needed combined with developing and the South Vietnamese military, the war could have ended earlier with South Vietnam remaining independent.




Wow.

So you still think the USA was "constrained" in Vietnam despite more than 2 times the amount of high explosives used in ALL of WW2 being dropped on this little south east country?

Sorry-thats just DELUSIONAL beyond words.


Back to the 1954 Geneva Contvention.
At the time-Ho Chi Minh-a VIETNAMESE Citizen and his army of VIETNAMESE Citizens had beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu--fair and square.

The Vietnamese simply wished to move on to an Election.
The USA REFUSED to allow this to happen--going so far as to organize a treaty organization(SEATO) designed to oppose FREE ELECTIONs in Vietnam.

I don't know HOW the Vietnamese Communists planned on "forcing a communist dictatorship" on the Vietnamese with FREE Democratic ELECTIONs...do you?
You make no sense to those of us who know Ann Coultier is a braindead-dipshit who REALLY believes that Canada participated in the Vietnam War--yeah,she's that DUMB!




After the distasterous Operation Speedy Express in the Mekong Delta in Kien Hoa the Vietnamese body count was marked at 11ooo corpses.

How many WEAPONS captured?
748 small arms and rifles.

These type of "operations" lead to the "White Papers" which Daniel Ellesberg tried to bring to public attention.

Nixon/Kissinger almost sacrificed their careers at impeachment trials to cover up the Government Military Audit which clearly showed --back in the early 1960's that Vietnam was UNwinnable in any circumstance.


The USA Opposed Democratic Elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's because they KNEW that Ho Chi Minh would win by a landslide --EVERYTIME.

I'm sure you will not be banned from these message boards for your historical revisions.
__________________
FatBratchney is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:21 PM   #22
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FatBratchney


Maybe you could take the time to explain in detail-on what pretext would the USA have to invade/bomb N.Vietnam starting at the 1954 Geneva Convention in which the USA refused to allow FREE elections in Vietnam.

At least 5oo ooo US Soldiers ended up in Vietnam after the faked Gulf of Tonkin inceident.
500 000 men/MORE armaments dropped my the USA then was dropped in WW2/countless brutal "search and destroy" missions like Speedy Express INSIDE SOUTH VIETNAM...4 Million dead Vitenamese...and YOU SAY the US Military was "hamstrung"?





Wow...
Yes, hamstrung. Your statistics are irrelevant to that arguement. The United States did not use every option at its disposal to win the war. If your going to fight a war, you have to attack your enemy with overwhelming military force, whether it be the army, the navy or the air force. Fighting a PC war only prolongs the fighting and creates more casualties. You have to destroy the enemy's ability to fight as swiftly as possible or you will end up fighting an insurgency that will never end....which is exactly what happened in Vietnam and may now be happening in Iraq.
__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:30 PM   #23
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Before I say something that NEEDs to be said--something VERY MEAN and dismissive of the intelligence level of these Anti-Vietnamese Neo-Cons....

Should the USA have nuked Vietnam?
These other posters are clearly at the Rush Limbaugh level--apparently unaware of basic budget figures/and factual historical accounts by Kissinger and MacNamara THEMSELVES.



Nixon drove the US Economy into the ground spending VAST portions of the Miltary budget.
The Carpet Bombings were UNprecedented in scale at the time.

YET---these neo-cons say that the USA was "hamstrung"??



WTF?

The only logical next step beyond these HUGE carpet bombings would be nukes.

Do the neo-cons agree that nukes should have been dropped on a country which barely had an AirForce?
__________________
FatBratchney is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:42 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FatBratchney






Wow.

So you still think the USA was "constrained" in Vietnam despite more than 2 times the amount of high explosives used in ALL of WW2 being dropped on this little south east country?

Sorry-thats just DELUSIONAL beyond words.


Back to the 1954 Geneva Contvention.
At the time-Ho Chi Minh-a VIETNAMESE Citizen and his army of VIETNAMESE Citizens had beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu--fair and square.

The Vietnamese simply wished to move on to an Election.
The USA REFUSED to allow this to happen--going so far as to organize a treaty organization(SEATO) designed to oppose FREE ELECTIONs in Vietnam.

I don't know HOW the Vietnamese Communists planned on "forcing a communist dictatorship" on the Vietnamese with FREE Democratic ELECTIONs...do you?
You make no sense to those of us who know Ann Coultier is a braindead-dipshit who REALLY believes that Canada participated in the Vietnam War--yeah,she's that DUMB!




After the distasterous Operation Speedy Express in the Mekong Delta in Kien Hoa the Vietnamese body count was marked at 11ooo corpses.

How many WEAPONS captured?
748 small arms and rifles.

These type of "operations" lead to the "White Papers" which Daniel Ellesberg tried to bring to public attention.

Nixon/Kissinger almost sacrificed their careers at impeachment trials to cover up the Government Military Audit which clearly showed --back in the early 1960's that Vietnam was UNwinnable in any circumstance.


The USA Opposed Democratic Elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's because they KNEW that Ho Chi Minh would win by a landslide --EVERYTIME.

I'm sure you will not be banned from these message boards for your historical revisions.
Once again, your bombing statistic is irrelevant. Once again, look at the number of bombs dropped and the number of people killed compare to World War II and you'll see that the number of people killed by bombs in Vietnam was a tiny fraction of the ratio who died from bombs in World War II. Most bombs were dropped on empty forest and were not dropped on real meaningful targets that would have truely effected the progress of the war.

What form of government did North Vietnam have? How many elections did North Vietnam have after 1954? The fact is, the United States and other countries did not want to be a part of a process that would doom those who wanted to live in a democracy in Vietnam to communist dictatorship. You seem to be ok with that which is amazing. No election that forces a people to live in slavery is fair. The United States had ever right to intervene especially since the Soviet Union and China were already present in regards to helping North Vietnam.

I don't understand why you bring up " Ann Coultier". I never read anything by her nor do I know anyone that has. Please stop stereotyping people here.

Any report that claims that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable back in the early 1960s is clearly wrong, that is if such a report exist and clearly stated that.

If the United States had not withdrawn prematurely from South Vietnam in the early 1970s, the South Vietnamese military and government would have been able to develop sufficiently to the point that no North Vietnamese offensive would be able to achieve its goals. Unfortunately, the United States essentially abandon South Vietnam in 1973 and that is the only reason that North Vietnam was able to take over the South, although it would not happen for another 2 years despite the absence of the United States.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:42 PM   #25
The Fly
 
japes4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Big Lemon (New York)
Posts: 78
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FatBratchney
Before I say something that NEEDs to said--something VERY MEAN and dismissive of the intelligence level of these Anti-Vietnamese Neo-Cons....

Should the USA have nuked Vietnam?
These other posters are clearly at the Rush Limbaugh level--apparently unaware of basic budget figures/and factual historical accounts by Kissinger and MacNamara THEMSELVES.



Nixon drove the US Economy into the ground spending VAST portions of the Miltary budget.
The Carpet Bombings were UNprecedented in scale at the time.

YET---these neo-cons say that the USA was "hamstrung"

The only logical next step beyond these HUGE carpet bombings would be nukes.

Do the neo-cons agree that nukes should have been dropped on a country which barely had an AirForce?

All I was saying is that if you are going to fight a war, you have to use every option at your disposal to win. If your not interested in winning a war, maybe you shouldn't be fighting it.

If the United States had fought World War II with the same restraints that it had in Vietnam and now has in Iraq, it never would have won.

FatBrachney, at no point have I ever insulted you. Please give others the same courtesy.
__________________
japes4 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:42 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:32 AM
yes, of course



they were pushing real hard for bunker-busted nukes

to use today

and just recently backed away

it was kind of hard trying to isolate N Korea and Iran on nukes

when they were arguing for nukes they WOULD have used all over Iraq and Afghanistan if they had them.


they are fucking NUTS

and their right-wing "we are on the side of the angels" base is the sickness the feeds this festering madness
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:47 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FatBratchney
Before I say something that NEEDs to be said--something VERY MEAN and dismissive of the intelligence level of these Anti-Vietnamese Neo-Cons....

Should the USA have nuked Vietnam?
These other posters are clearly at the Rush Limbaugh level--apparently unaware of basic budget figures/and factual historical accounts by Kissinger and MacNamara THEMSELVES.



Nixon drove the US Economy into the ground spending VAST portions of the Miltary budget.
The Carpet Bombings were UNprecedented in scale at the time.

YET---these neo-cons say that the USA was "hamstrung"??



WTF?

The only logical next step beyond these HUGE carpet bombings would be nukes.

Do the neo-cons agree that nukes should have been dropped on a country which barely had an AirForce?
Anyone interested in name calling should read the Faq/Rules.

I'd like to discuss the facts of the war, but that does not seem to be what your interested in discussing.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:50 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by japes4





If the United States had fought World War II with the same restraints that it had in Vietnam and now has in Iraq, it never would have won.

and a civil war in Viet Nam was the same threat as Hitler and the same threat as the Japanese that had bombed Pearl Harbor?


if you are going to use the WWII comparisons we had no business in VN or in Iraq today.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:53 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
yes, of course



they were pushing real hard for bunker-busted nukes

to use today

and just recently backed away

it was kind of hard trying to isolate N Korea and Iran on nukes

when they were arguing for nukes they WOULD have used all over Iraq and Afghanistan if they had them.


they are fucking NUTS

and their right-wing "we are on the side of the angels" base is the sickness the feeds this festering madness
The United States has plenty of different types of Nuclear Weapons it could use anywhere if it chose to. Unfortunately, its typically the "left wing" who are ignorant of these facts and claim any new development of any type of system automatically means it is going to be deployed and used on a mass scale. The United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945 and had no need or true desire to use such weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 02:54 PM   #30
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 52
Local Time: 09:32 AM
I guess you need to read up on the the USA/Vietnam Conflict a little more.
I mentioned Ann Coultier because she was seen being interviewed by a Canadian journalistic regarding the downfall of Journalistic Integrity in the USA.
In passing she remarked that it was odd that Canada participated In Vietnam (gulp..?) but would NOT participate in the invasion of Iraq.

The journalist CORRECTED this twit Coultier--coultier puts on her best smart person face and suggets that the Canadian journalist had the facts wrong.




Wow---such a BASIC issue.

BASIC ISSUE:The US Military ITSELF had conducted a detailed field audit of operations in Vietnam--the result was the PENTAGON PAPERs which clearly delineated that the war was UNwinnable.

Johnson and Kissinger buried these audits which were conducted by high ranking US Military officials such as Gen. Maxwell Taylor.




How democratic elections equate with a "communist dictatorship" is indicative of some fallacious reasoning.
__________________

__________________
FatBratchney is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com