Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
August1991

The Vietnam War

Recommended Posts

Edited to add: I would agree but then, Bush was a terrible communicator so part of that is many did not understand the entire problem and underlying reasons for many actions.

Subsequently, there is a sense of betrayal and extreme distrust about the whole war. The fact that so many people thought that Iraq was directly responsible for September 11 was something Bush should have cleared up right away. I think some people almost expected Saddam to be brought back to the U.S. to stand trial for the attacks.

The invasion certainly got the Royals to stop sitting on their hands and participate for a change.

I don't Saudi Arabia was afraid of an invasion. Money still flows to fund terrorist operations around the world.

I'd like to have a quote that shows that as the only one I have seen is one in which he speaks of a US presence there similar to the US presence in South Korea or Germany.

He talked about Korea but in Meet the Press, it certainly sounded like a fight rather than a presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subsequently, there is a sense of betrayal and extreme distrust about the whole war. The fact that so many people thought that Iraq was directly responsible for September 11 was something Bush should have cleared up right away. I think some people almost expected Saddam to be brought back to the U.S. to stand trial for the attacks.

I certainly never thought that and yes, I agree, he is a poor communicator and should have explained it better. However, it is not his job to confront every pot headed theory on the net but yes, in certain things, he should have done better.

I don't Saudi Arabia was afraid of an invasion. Money still flows to fund terrorist operations around the world.

They were never in danger of invasion however, they certainly were in danger of having the US conduct anti terrorism raids on their soil if they didn't do it themselves. They will never admit that that is the reason they miraculously began to crack down on Al Qaeda and financing and, the US will never say they ever intended to attack and occupy if necessary, any real or perceived (read oilfeild) AQ training facilities as part and parcel of the Bush Doctrine #2 We will fight and defeat the forces of evil wherever they are.

He talked about Korea but in Meet the Press, it certainly sounded like a fight rather than a presence.

gee isn't that what I just quoted? Here's the transcript;

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

And double gee, isn't that Obama's strategy? He intends to keep fifty thousand troops in Iraq in case they're needed to fight terrorism in the area. And triple gee, isn't that one of the reasons I said Bush invaded Iraq to begin with?

Golly, no wonder so many people thought Saddam was responsible for 911, they're fucking idiots who can't read or listen. And now, they're back again saying McCain wanted to fight in Iraq forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly never thought that and yes, I agree, he is a poor communicator and should have explained it better. However, it is not his job to confront every pot headed theory on the net but yes, in certain things, he should have done better.

The polls consistently showed that people believed this and some of the media that was supportive of Bush went to lengths to try and make that connection.

They were never in danger of invasion however, they certainly were in danger of having the US conduct anti terrorism raids on their soil if they didn't do it themselves. They will never admit that that is the reason they miraculously began to crack down on Al Qaeda and financing and, the US will never say they ever intended to attack and occupy if necessary, any real or perceived (read oilfeild) AQ training facilities as part and parcel of the Bush Doctrine #2 We will fight and defeat the forces of evil wherever they are.

Except in Pakistan, it seems.

And double gee, isn't that Obama's strategy? He intends to keep fifty thousand troops in Iraq in case they're needed to fight terrorism in the area. And triple gee, isn't that one of the reasons I said Bush invaded Iraq to begin with?

There was no terrorism in Iraq or supported by Iraq that could be traced to the attacks of al Qaeda.

Golly, no wonder so many people thought Saddam was responsible for 911, they're fucking idiots who can't read or listen. And now, they're back again saying McCain wanted to fight in Iraq forever.

McCain said troops would stay in Iraq as long as they were out of harm's way but in that same talk on Meet the Press, he said they would be present for a fight until "success" is achieved.

Comparing the presence to Japan, Germany or Korea ignores the fact that insurgency still happens. The country continues to be itching for a civil war.

It is doubtful the U.S. can keep a lid on these feelings if that is the route Iraq wants to go.

Unlike McCain, Obama continues to stick to a plan of getting out of Iraq by 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The polls consistently showed that people believed this and some of the media that was supportive of Bush went to lengths to try and make that connection.

Some Americans also believe that Elvis is still alive.

Except in Pakistan, it seems.

Americans have attacked inside Pakistan.

There was no terrorism in Iraq or supported by Iraq that could be traced to the attacks of al Qaeda.

Doesn't prove it didn't exist.

Comparing the presence to Japan, Germany or Korea ignores the fact that insurgency still happens. The country continues to be itching for a civil war.

So do Quebec and Alberta.....

It is doubtful the U.S. can keep a lid on these feelings if that is the route Iraq wants to go.

They don't have to....the desired tipping point has already been reached.

Unlike McCain, Obama continues to stick to a plan of getting out of Iraq by 2011.

Not likely....see the new US embassy...largest in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The polls consistently showed that people believed this and some of the media that was supportive of Bush went to lengths to try and make that connection.

Like I said, I nver thought that and, I read the same material.

Except in Pakistan, it seems.

Yes, that would be very bad as you may find yourself with a nuclear armed Taliban ruled country of a fifth of a billion people. That is the one place that has to be last on the list as a lot of attention and resources is going to be needed.

There was no terrorism in Iraq or supported by Iraq that could be traced to the attacks of al Qaeda.

That's for sure however, it held perfect ground with which to act in the area - specifically SA.

McCain said troops would stay in Iraq as long as they were out of harm's way but in that same talk on Meet the Press, he said they would be present for a fight until "success" is achieved.

Pretty moot now as that has occurred.

Comparing the presence to Japan, Germany or Korea ignores the fact that insurgency still happens. The country continues to be itching for a civil war.

It is doubtful the U.S. can keep a lid on these feelings if that is the route Iraq wants to go.

Unlike McCain, Obama continues to stick to a plan of getting out of Iraq by 2011.

Does he?

Today the president detailed the plans for members of Congress, and said the remnant forces, which would remain for an indefinite period of time, will be in Iraq to “advise Iraqi troops and protect US interests.”

Is 2011 an indefinite time? That's when he gets the first troops out. Fifty thousand stay indefinitely (read a hundred years or, closer to forever than McCain said.)

Edited by KrustyKidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, I nver thought that and, I read the same material.

Neither did I but the numbers were so astoundingly high that even Bush must have eventually realized that the beliefs of so many people about the September 11 link threatened his presidency.

Yes, that would be very bad as you may find yourself with a nuclear armed Taliban ruled country of a fifth of a billion people. That is the one place that has to be last on the list as a lot of attention and resources is going to be needed.

I don't know that there anyone wants to send a military to occupy the place when even Pakistan forces are routinely massacred. The only objective would be in the face of a collapse: Secure the nuclear weapons.

That's for sure however, it held perfect ground with which to act in the area - specifically SA.

I think terrorism forces are well entrenched now. It remains to be seen if Iraq's experience of insurgency results in terrorism world-wide in the years ahead.

Pretty moot now as that has occurred.

It was one of the reasons why he didn't gain traction. There was this feeling that he'd keep fighting in Iraq. The way he was talking, it looked like he might be taking the fight to Iran as well.

Think people just got weary of the many years of conflict that seemed to be in the future.

Does he?

They keep talking about full scale departure in 2011.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8132561.stm

Earlier this week, US forces completed their withdrawal from Iraqi towns and cities, in preparation for a full departure by 2011.

Both Biden and Obama said this week that the timetable remains in place.

Is 2011 an indefinite time? That's when he gets the first troops out. Fifty thousand stay indefinitely (read a hundred years.)

Full departure by 2011. I haven't heard anything that contradicts that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that there is a need for everyone to know who are the REAL people behind all these wars.

The best way to know U.S. politics is to view " Obama Deception Full Length " on youtube.com

Also download the free Obama Deception Guide :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13404412/The-Obama-Deception-Guide

There is no Left or Right in US politics , they are only acting in front of the camera. When off camera, the Left and the Right go to parties and dinner...etc.

The only people controlling the White House is the International Bankers and the US Presidency is only a puppet post.

For the explanation of all these wars in the past 100 years, please check out the link below and then read all the links of that site. One

thing for sure, we have been sidetracked to petty issues while something deadly serious, threatening to Mankind is being secretly engineered.

http://nworesistance.com/war-and-conflict-explained.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was the last of the "Whiz Kids" that gave us systems analysis, cost benefit, and FB-111 fighter bombers!

That he lived to the ripe old age of 93 probably irks many of his detractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real failure was not blocking the Trail. That had to be done on the ground. Laos and Cambodia were turning a blind eye to NVA divisions marching south to conduct warfare. Only too late was an attempt made and the media jumped all over it as an INVASION of a neutral country. That was a stretch....Laos and Cambodia being neutral.

:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lam_Son_719

Of course, the Trail wasn't a single road, so effort had to be made to cut off this route. Just spending a few days there then leaving wasn't going to do the trick.

Re: airpower. I agree that North Vietnam should have been under constant interdiction re: entrances to the Ho Chi Minh Trail. What few folks in the West knew at the time was that actual Soviet troops were stationed in North Viet-Nam helping run the air defence system. This may have well influenced the vigorousness of the air campaign in the North as overt Soviet casualties might have caused the conflict to spread to a more global scale.

Rolling Thunder, the bombing of the North (1965-1968), was a very controled campaign divided into what were called Route Packs (I-VI). RP-I being in the south of North Viet-Nam with RP-VI being the danger zone around Hanoi...one of the best defended cities ever AA-wise. All on the Russian's dime...errr...kopek. LBJ himself would go over the targets with Robert McNamara and pick what places were going to get the B-52s and F-105s (etc) that day. Overall, the North Vietnamese (with Soviet help) often gave as good as they got in many engagements with the USN and USAF.

The North Vietnamese airforce used three different modern Soviet fighters, having good success with each: MiG-17 Fresco, MiG-19 Farmer and the MiG-21 Fishbed.

I largely agree with you, DoP - with the following points.

A land invasion of Laos and Cambodia would have complicated things tremendously when vigourous air strikes could achive the same goal. OTOH, we are used to precision air bombing now in part because the technology was developed in the Vietnam War. At the time, such sophistication did not exist.

As to air attacks on the North, I was surprised by LBJ's various moratoria. In 1972, Nixon gave full orders and mined Haiphong harbour. This ultimately brought the peace signing and the POWs home. IMV, the US should have dominated the skies from the beginning - as Israel did in 1967.

One major point about the Cold War is that the Soviets and teh US both feared direct confrontation. Nevertheless, I don't think the US should have feared the deaths of several Soviet "advisors" operating planes or air defence systems in North Vietnam. God knows what would have happened if the Soviets had put troops into North Vietnam though.

A mention should be made of the NVA leadership, as well. North Viet-Nam enjoyed the talents of one of the best generals in modern times, Vo Nguyen Giap. Without this fellow at the helm, it is hard to say if North Viet-Nam could have won this conflict. He served from the days of the French right through to the end. He changed the North Vietnamese Army from a Third World rabble to one of the most elite forces on the planet. Fellows like Westmoreland were unable to grasp the kind of war Giap was fighting.
Good point. Giap was no ideologue and he certainly knew the terrain he was fighting on. Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I largely agree with you, DoP - with the following points.

A land invasion of Laos and Cambodia would have complicated things tremendously when vigourous air strikes could achive the same goal. OTOH, we are used to precision air bombing now in part because the technology was developed in the Vietnam War. At the time, such sophistication did not exist.

As to air attacks on the North, I was surprised by LBJ's various moratoria. In 1972, Nixon gave full orders and mined Haiphong harbour. This ultimately brought the peace signing and the POWs home. IMV, the US should have dominated the skies from the beginning - as Israel did in 1967.

One major point about the Cold War is that the Soviets and teh US both feared direct confrontation. Nevertheless, I don't think the US should have feared the deaths of several Soviet "advisors" operating planes or air defence systems in North Vietnam. God knows what would have happened if the Soviets had put troops into North Vietnam though.

Good point. Giap was no ideologue and he certainly knew the terrain he was fighting on.

LBJ...in my opinion...tried to continue his Great Society onto the battlefield. Thus the many chances the North Vietnamese had to 'come to the table'. Kissenger and Nixon played good cop, bad cop with the North.

I have to disagree re: the effectiveness of airpower on the Trail. They bombed the crap out of it without much effect. One of my favorite tales from the bombing of the Trail was the McNamara Line. This was a line of 'high tech' (for the time) sensors that were to detect movement and other enemy activity. One type of sensor actually 'sniffed urine'...a sure sign of activity...eh? The NVA would pee into buckets and hang them near one of these sensors then back-off while the air-strikes rolled-in. Once the strike was over, the NVA soldiers could move on down the trail undisturbed...usually pushing a bicycle packed with rice and ammo. Waterbuffalo urine was also used when available as it apparently brought the bombers the quickest. Must have been 'strong' stuff.

:lol:

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he was the last of the "Whiz Kids" that gave us systems analysis, cost benefit, and FB-111 fighter bombers!

That he lived to the ripe old age of 93 probably irks many of his detractors.

Best and the brightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auguste,

Some mushiness here:

Since World War II, America has learned that it must defend the principles of liberty abroad where it can and when the threat is particularly great to America itself.
When an open democracy stands up to an organized authoritarian regime, or its proxy, we should all be thankful.
Americans fought the fight of individual liberty.

Was America acting in its self-interest or not ? I say 'yes'. The tone of some of your posts leans towards praising some kind of altruism in their motives. Not the case, especially in the [sic] heat of the cold war.

It has also been fashionable to believe that America lost the Vietnam War because of domestic American public opinion. I disagree. Again, in my view, the Vietnam War was one battle in a larger Cold War and America (and the West) ultimately won the Cold War.

Why do you put these sentences together ? It's mushy. Why do *you* think America lost the war ?

Have you been to Walmart and looked inside a bra?

I'm really glad you explained this one later on.

Sometimes I ask myself if those skinny Chinese factory workers wonder what those huge American bras ARE. Talk about an arms race...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....Sometimes I ask myself if those skinny Chinese factory workers wonder what those huge American bras ARE. Talk about an arms race...

They know allright....their rich neighbors send the kids to American universities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC2004,

Can you explain that ?

China did not develop stratified residential housing or sprawling suburbia over a long period of time as in North America. Today, demands for housing in "tiered" cities force densities and fierce competition for rich and poor alike. They can't escape to the Hamptons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought I remembered reading about new housing projects in China somewhere...

One would think that housing would be the first sign of new economic growth.

Yes they are...but not without problems.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/19204/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cool....who knew that "night flying" was prohibited over "Burma". ;)

:lol:

Fly Air America to all your Far-East destinations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 



Some of the papers have been declassified for some time, but this is the first time that ALL the Vietnam papers were declassified. So, what does this mean for the other conflicts that the US has been involved in? Iraq comes to mind. And in this new light, how about Libya?

This also shows how the media can be controlled by the government. Undeniable. The Foxinsider.com bit shows that for sure. NY times was ordered to not publish the leaked documents. The government lied to the American people and threatened the media to not publish those findings.

 

Edited by Charles Anthony
thread merged; former title " Pentagon declassifies all the Vietnam papers "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't worry about the government controling the media - but more about private individuals who control the government who then control the media. It is always about "American interests" - These interests are usually exclusive to a small elite...Vietnam was of no benefit to the common American in so far as generating wealth - but it was of great benefit to those who sold arms, or who invisioned the spread of communism as being bad for buisness....Yet now the tables have turned and our capitalist elite have now delegated the labour to a communist nation - China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...