- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM #470162October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM #469351
briansd1
Guest[quote=surveyor]
As Allan has pointed out many times, the U.S. never lost a military battle. However, many countries and internationalists perceived the U.S. to have lost Vietnam because of the way we left. While there was no doubt of our military prowess, the lesson for many countries was that the U.S. could be beaten.[/quote]
surveyor, “lost Vietnam because of the way we left” is the key phrase here.
Let’s give Allan the benefit of the doubt for a minute and agree that we didn’t militarily lose Vietnam.
HOW we left Vietnam is the key here. Nixon negotiated in secret with the Communist North Vietnam (the arch enemy here) beginning with his arrival in the White House and culminating in the Paris Accords and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize onto Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. In that case, the Republican thew away the “not-negotiate-with-the-enemy” mantra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Duc_Tho
Nixon/Ford had 6 years to plan out an exit and that was HOW we exited Vietnam? In shame with the whole world watching.
Talk about screwed-up.
Remember Bin Laden? “He got that lesson from Vietnam.”
October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM #469533Guest[quote=surveyor]
As Allan has pointed out many times, the U.S. never lost a military battle. However, many countries and internationalists perceived the U.S. to have lost Vietnam because of the way we left. While there was no doubt of our military prowess, the lesson for many countries was that the U.S. could be beaten.[/quote]
surveyor, “lost Vietnam because of the way we left” is the key phrase here.
Let’s give Allan the benefit of the doubt for a minute and agree that we didn’t militarily lose Vietnam.
HOW we left Vietnam is the key here. Nixon negotiated in secret with the Communist North Vietnam (the arch enemy here) beginning with his arrival in the White House and culminating in the Paris Accords and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize onto Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. In that case, the Republican thew away the “not-negotiate-with-the-enemy” mantra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Duc_Tho
Nixon/Ford had 6 years to plan out an exit and that was HOW we exited Vietnam? In shame with the whole world watching.
Talk about screwed-up.
Remember Bin Laden? “He got that lesson from Vietnam.”
October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM #469889Guest[quote=surveyor]
As Allan has pointed out many times, the U.S. never lost a military battle. However, many countries and internationalists perceived the U.S. to have lost Vietnam because of the way we left. While there was no doubt of our military prowess, the lesson for many countries was that the U.S. could be beaten.[/quote]
surveyor, “lost Vietnam because of the way we left” is the key phrase here.
Let’s give Allan the benefit of the doubt for a minute and agree that we didn’t militarily lose Vietnam.
HOW we left Vietnam is the key here. Nixon negotiated in secret with the Communist North Vietnam (the arch enemy here) beginning with his arrival in the White House and culminating in the Paris Accords and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize onto Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. In that case, the Republican thew away the “not-negotiate-with-the-enemy” mantra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Duc_Tho
Nixon/Ford had 6 years to plan out an exit and that was HOW we exited Vietnam? In shame with the whole world watching.
Talk about screwed-up.
Remember Bin Laden? “He got that lesson from Vietnam.”
October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM #469961Guest[quote=surveyor]
As Allan has pointed out many times, the U.S. never lost a military battle. However, many countries and internationalists perceived the U.S. to have lost Vietnam because of the way we left. While there was no doubt of our military prowess, the lesson for many countries was that the U.S. could be beaten.[/quote]
surveyor, “lost Vietnam because of the way we left” is the key phrase here.
Let’s give Allan the benefit of the doubt for a minute and agree that we didn’t militarily lose Vietnam.
HOW we left Vietnam is the key here. Nixon negotiated in secret with the Communist North Vietnam (the arch enemy here) beginning with his arrival in the White House and culminating in the Paris Accords and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize onto Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. In that case, the Republican thew away the “not-negotiate-with-the-enemy” mantra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Duc_Tho
Nixon/Ford had 6 years to plan out an exit and that was HOW we exited Vietnam? In shame with the whole world watching.
Talk about screwed-up.
Remember Bin Laden? “He got that lesson from Vietnam.”
October 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM #470173Guest[quote=surveyor]
As Allan has pointed out many times, the U.S. never lost a military battle. However, many countries and internationalists perceived the U.S. to have lost Vietnam because of the way we left. While there was no doubt of our military prowess, the lesson for many countries was that the U.S. could be beaten.[/quote]
surveyor, “lost Vietnam because of the way we left” is the key phrase here.
Let’s give Allan the benefit of the doubt for a minute and agree that we didn’t militarily lose Vietnam.
HOW we left Vietnam is the key here. Nixon negotiated in secret with the Communist North Vietnam (the arch enemy here) beginning with his arrival in the White House and culminating in the Paris Accords and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize onto Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. In that case, the Republican thew away the “not-negotiate-with-the-enemy” mantra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Duc_Tho
Nixon/Ford had 6 years to plan out an exit and that was HOW we exited Vietnam? In shame with the whole world watching.
Talk about screwed-up.
Remember Bin Laden? “He got that lesson from Vietnam.”
October 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM #469391Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantBrian: Uh, okay, talk about avoiding facts or omitting them altogether.
Last US combat troops were out in 1973, not 1975, so you have a two year window that you have to account for, prior to that infamous Huey shot in April, 1975.
So, what happened in the interim? Would you like to discuss how a Democrat-led Congress left the armed forces of South Vietnam high and dry and without the necessary war materials and supplies to sustain and maintain offensive operations in the field against the North Vietnamese Army? How the fall of Saigon (as well as the rest of the South Vietnam) came about as a result of that?
You talked about starting a book club. Here’s some titles you should read about the Vietnam War (actual books, not Wiki entries). Start with a “Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan, move to “Fire in the Lake” by Frances Fitzgerald, and then “The Cat From Hue” by John Laurence (OPCA Winner) and finally “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Troung Nhu Tang.
That last one is a must read and highly informative, especially to someone that has been propagandized by the Halberstams and Karnows. You also might want to sit down with some guys who were actually IN the Vietnam War. Most of the senior NCOs and officers I served with in the 1980s were Vietnam vets and I can tell you their take is very different from yours, largely because they were there and saw the war as soldiers, not some cheap agitprop bloviation exercise.
October 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM #469572ParticipantBrian: Uh, okay, talk about avoiding facts or omitting them altogether.
Last US combat troops were out in 1973, not 1975, so you have a two year window that you have to account for, prior to that infamous Huey shot in April, 1975.
So, what happened in the interim? Would you like to discuss how a Democrat-led Congress left the armed forces of South Vietnam high and dry and without the necessary war materials and supplies to sustain and maintain offensive operations in the field against the North Vietnamese Army? How the fall of Saigon (as well as the rest of the South Vietnam) came about as a result of that?
You talked about starting a book club. Here’s some titles you should read about the Vietnam War (actual books, not Wiki entries). Start with a “Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan, move to “Fire in the Lake” by Frances Fitzgerald, and then “The Cat From Hue” by John Laurence (OPCA Winner) and finally “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Troung Nhu Tang.
That last one is a must read and highly informative, especially to someone that has been propagandized by the Halberstams and Karnows. You also might want to sit down with some guys who were actually IN the Vietnam War. Most of the senior NCOs and officers I served with in the 1980s were Vietnam vets and I can tell you their take is very different from yours, largely because they were there and saw the war as soldiers, not some cheap agitprop bloviation exercise.
October 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM #469929ParticipantBrian: Uh, okay, talk about avoiding facts or omitting them altogether.
Last US combat troops were out in 1973, not 1975, so you have a two year window that you have to account for, prior to that infamous Huey shot in April, 1975.
So, what happened in the interim? Would you like to discuss how a Democrat-led Congress left the armed forces of South Vietnam high and dry and without the necessary war materials and supplies to sustain and maintain offensive operations in the field against the North Vietnamese Army? How the fall of Saigon (as well as the rest of the South Vietnam) came about as a result of that?
You talked about starting a book club. Here’s some titles you should read about the Vietnam War (actual books, not Wiki entries). Start with a “Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan, move to “Fire in the Lake” by Frances Fitzgerald, and then “The Cat From Hue” by John Laurence (OPCA Winner) and finally “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Troung Nhu Tang.
That last one is a must read and highly informative, especially to someone that has been propagandized by the Halberstams and Karnows. You also might want to sit down with some guys who were actually IN the Vietnam War. Most of the senior NCOs and officers I served with in the 1980s were Vietnam vets and I can tell you their take is very different from yours, largely because they were there and saw the war as soldiers, not some cheap agitprop bloviation exercise.
October 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM #470001ParticipantBrian: Uh, okay, talk about avoiding facts or omitting them altogether.
Last US combat troops were out in 1973, not 1975, so you have a two year window that you have to account for, prior to that infamous Huey shot in April, 1975.
So, what happened in the interim? Would you like to discuss how a Democrat-led Congress left the armed forces of South Vietnam high and dry and without the necessary war materials and supplies to sustain and maintain offensive operations in the field against the North Vietnamese Army? How the fall of Saigon (as well as the rest of the South Vietnam) came about as a result of that?
You talked about starting a book club. Here’s some titles you should read about the Vietnam War (actual books, not Wiki entries). Start with a “Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan, move to “Fire in the Lake” by Frances Fitzgerald, and then “The Cat From Hue” by John Laurence (OPCA Winner) and finally “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Troung Nhu Tang.
That last one is a must read and highly informative, especially to someone that has been propagandized by the Halberstams and Karnows. You also might want to sit down with some guys who were actually IN the Vietnam War. Most of the senior NCOs and officers I served with in the 1980s were Vietnam vets and I can tell you their take is very different from yours, largely because they were there and saw the war as soldiers, not some cheap agitprop bloviation exercise.
October 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM #470212ParticipantBrian: Uh, okay, talk about avoiding facts or omitting them altogether.
Last US combat troops were out in 1973, not 1975, so you have a two year window that you have to account for, prior to that infamous Huey shot in April, 1975.
So, what happened in the interim? Would you like to discuss how a Democrat-led Congress left the armed forces of South Vietnam high and dry and without the necessary war materials and supplies to sustain and maintain offensive operations in the field against the North Vietnamese Army? How the fall of Saigon (as well as the rest of the South Vietnam) came about as a result of that?
You talked about starting a book club. Here’s some titles you should read about the Vietnam War (actual books, not Wiki entries). Start with a “Bright Shining Lie” by Neil Sheehan, move to “Fire in the Lake” by Frances Fitzgerald, and then “The Cat From Hue” by John Laurence (OPCA Winner) and finally “A Viet Cong Memoir” by Troung Nhu Tang.
That last one is a must read and highly informative, especially to someone that has been propagandized by the Halberstams and Karnows. You also might want to sit down with some guys who were actually IN the Vietnam War. Most of the senior NCOs and officers I served with in the 1980s were Vietnam vets and I can tell you their take is very different from yours, largely because they were there and saw the war as soldiers, not some cheap agitprop bloviation exercise.
October 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM #469403GuestAbout the Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t hear any conservative criticizing the award to Henry Kissinger who got it for negotiating with the enemy.
Kissinger negotiated away South Vietnam in the dark, in secret, without the knowledge of the American people and the service men who fought in Vietnam.
At the time, Kissinger was only the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State with all the trappings and legitimacy of the American government.
Did Kissinger bring about peace in a way the served American interests? That’s something for the conservatives to reflect upon.
And even as Kissinger negotiated away the conflict, Nixon was still incapable to plan even a semblance of an honorable exit.
October 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM #469586GuestAbout the Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t hear any conservative criticizing the award to Henry Kissinger who got it for negotiating with the enemy.
Kissinger negotiated away South Vietnam in the dark, in secret, without the knowledge of the American people and the service men who fought in Vietnam.
At the time, Kissinger was only the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State with all the trappings and legitimacy of the American government.
Did Kissinger bring about peace in a way the served American interests? That’s something for the conservatives to reflect upon.
And even as Kissinger negotiated away the conflict, Nixon was still incapable to plan even a semblance of an honorable exit.
October 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM #469941GuestAbout the Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t hear any conservative criticizing the award to Henry Kissinger who got it for negotiating with the enemy.
Kissinger negotiated away South Vietnam in the dark, in secret, without the knowledge of the American people and the service men who fought in Vietnam.
At the time, Kissinger was only the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State with all the trappings and legitimacy of the American government.
Did Kissinger bring about peace in a way the served American interests? That’s something for the conservatives to reflect upon.
And even as Kissinger negotiated away the conflict, Nixon was still incapable to plan even a semblance of an honorable exit.
October 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM #470013GuestAbout the Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t hear any conservative criticizing the award to Henry Kissinger who got it for negotiating with the enemy.
Kissinger negotiated away South Vietnam in the dark, in secret, without the knowledge of the American people and the service men who fought in Vietnam.
At the time, Kissinger was only the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State with all the trappings and legitimacy of the American government.
Did Kissinger bring about peace in a way the served American interests? That’s something for the conservatives to reflect upon.
And even as Kissinger negotiated away the conflict, Nixon was still incapable to plan even a semblance of an honorable exit.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.