Typo. Excuse me.

‘Tet was the VC’s last hurrah, but the media had convinced the general population, and you, that it was actually a defeat for us.’

There YOU go again. I never denied the fact Tet wasnt a victory – in a military sense. However, you fail to look at the larger picture. Giap didnt necessarily expect to pull a smashing military victory. He caused many casualties, and struck right at the heart – almost at every major city and American base. This was a clear indicator to everyone that Vietnam could not be won, mostly due to the overwhelming sympathy of South Vietnamese to the VC.

‘As events would turn out, our tactical victories were indeed hollow only because our politicians had us fight with an arm and leg tied behind our backs and then surrendered the AO.’

This is a typical viewpoint. I think you should learn to accept that the war was lost for a number of reasons. The overall strategy in Vietnam was off in many ways, i.e the huge bombing campaigns, the bodycount tactics…..the war wasnt fought with an arm and a leg tied behind the back. Far from it.

‘If the South was so VC loving, why did millions vote with their lives and rickety boats to come to the land that “oppressed” them.’

Millions? Haha….If the South was so VC hating, why did millions vote with their lives, and support them and harbour them…..despite the fact this could lead to them being locked away by the corrupt South Vietnam, or America? Face it – if there was a democratic election throughout Vietnam, Ho would of won. People that left Vietnam in the direct aftermath of the war were largely associates of the Americans.

‘If Vietnam didn’t happen, something else would’ve.’

Such as?

‘You mean to tell me that there is nothing humanitarian about going into Iraq? ‘

You mean to tell me this is the MAIN reason for the war? WMD’s? Links to Al Qaeda? Maybe you forget about this false premises that were the main reason of the war. Bush changed it to a ‘humanitarian’ mission when he knew he was wrong. Im sure the 13,000 victims of the war, and their familys are delighted at the humanitarian effort. Oh and the petty criminals at Abu Ghraib.

There you go again. Tet was the VC’s last hurrah, but the media had convinced the general population, and you, that it was actually a defeat for us. There is plenty of documentation and even quotes from VC leadership that were surprised beyond their wildest dreams that their defeat had been turned into a victory by Kerry & friends.

“And YOU are megaphoning pre Vietnam theories that military victories = winning of the war. In actual fact, military ‘victories’ in Vietnam were hollow.”

As events would turn out, our tactical victories were indeed hollow only because our politicians had us fight with an arm and leg tied behind our backs and then surrendered the AO.

If the South was so VC loving, why did millions vote with their lives and rickety boats to come to the land that “oppressed” them. That Vietnam had a brian drain would suggest that your VC victory is quite hollow to the core.

If Vietnam didn’t happen, something else would’ve.

“Again, the writer ignores an important fact. This was solely a humanitarian mission UNLIKE Iraq.”

In war, bullets & bombs don’t care about such nuances such as humanitarian vs “aggression”. More people died under Saddam than Milosevic. You mean to tell me that there is nothing humanitarian about going into Iraq? Oh yeah–Bush Lied, People Died… How dumb of me, I thot we were there to kickstart the Middle East into the 21st century–something Bush Sr should’ve done the first time around. With your background & education, I imagine the Sunnis could use some help getting there and start becoming a productive member of the global village.

Rather than go around and around on this, I’m going to do a Nixon and pull out of this discussion. Hasta la vista, baby

His strategys werent GOOD, let alone perfect. He escalated the war to its maximum troop commitment, secretly bombed Cambodia and tried abysmally to mislead the American people into thinking the war could be won by ‘Vietnamization.’ He failed as his Democrat predecessors did.

‘More so, old Uncle Walter and friends in the media leveraged our military victory in Tet into a political defeat back home.’

This is an unvalid point. Military victories didnt win the war in Vietnam. The Tet offensive showed just how vulnerable the US was, and the overwhelming support the VC had in South Vietnam. Tet was a victory in this sense. You are looking at the offensive from an extremely dated viewpoint.

‘The issue of you not knowing your history, is that you’re repeating revisionist history. ‘

And YOU are megaphoning pre Vietnam theories that military victories = winning of the war. In actual fact, military ‘victories’ in Vietnam were hollow.

‘Just as Kerry claimed that he was in Cambodia when he heard Nixon deny any US involvement. Kerry threw that out there to pander to the anti-Nixon crowd.’

This is a total red herring. I made no reference to this. It has no relevance to the discussion.

‘FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.’

The dinosaur Isolationist writer conviniently ignores the fact that Germany declared war on the US, and had previously said it would partake in unrestricted U-Boat warfare.

‘John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. (more lives lost under LBJ than Nixon)’

Good point, but its a red herring as i never contradicted this. I dont think Vietnam should of happened. Regardless of who was in power.

‘Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.’

Again, the writer ignores an important fact. This was solely a humanitarian mission UNLIKE Iraq.

The writer also ignores Bush’s domestic record, and the fact the 9/11 attack on the US had nothing to do with Iraq. As if he can make the ludicrous suggestion FDR is a worse President than Bush! Thats outrageous, by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, i wouldnt quite say hes THE worst President…..i can think of a few other likely candidates….

Hmmm, let’s see… Way back when Ernst Reuther was running for the office of West Berlin mayor, he was accused of being a communist. His reply was roughly translated as “To be a socialist in youth is to be an idealist, to be be one as a older man is to be a fool”.

Another adage: A conservative is a liberal that was mugged.

Im sorry Wuzzy, but i dont buy this. You are in effect just disregarding/ignoring all of my valid, backed up statements due to my age. You dont need to have lived through something to have an in depth understand of it. Thats an insane notion.

Unfortunately, your statements aren’t valid, that’s why we’re debating the points. After years of prosecuting the Nam war under democratic CINCs, Nixon had to try something different. His strategy may not have been perfect, but you have to realize that CINCs do not operate in a vacuum. That is, congress and the people also have something to say about the objectives.

More so, old Uncle Walter and friends in the media leveraged our military victory in Tet into a political defeat back home. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

In essence, all wars are political, but once a nation has determined that it needs to fight, then the politicians need to step back and let the military do their thing to win an unconditional surrender from the enemy.

There are plenty of reasons why this war was politicized (on both sides of the aisle). But the root can be traced back to the Korean War and notions of containment and international law (read UN), instead of absolute victory.

The issue of you not knowing your history, is that you’re repeating revisionist history. Just as Kerry claimed that he was in Cambodia when he heard Nixon deny any US involvement. Kerry threw that out there to pander to the anti-Nixon crowd.

Here’s a good quote I picked up somewhere–kudos to the originator;

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Let’s clear up one point: President Bush didn’t start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. (nevertheless, had we lost, we’d be speaking German and heiling the fuhrer or speaking Japanese and hailing the sun king)

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. (more lives lost under LBJ than Nixon)

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. We lost 1000 soldiers, an average of 500 a year. There were 137 US Soldiers actually killed during the fight to Bagdad. The rest were killed while trying to re-establish an Iraqi government that US, UN, French, German and even the Iraqis would like to see run their country. i.e.: Trying to replace the destroyed (mainly by Iraqi looters) power stations, fuel lines, telephones and get a functioning government and police force up to a point so that the military forces who attacked Iraq could be withdrawn. Of the 1000 plus deaths, about 25% are non combat related (illness, accidents etc). Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his car sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

NOTE: Thanks to Grenada, Panama and especially Gulf War I the public has gotten an unhealthy expectation of war being a bloodless affair. Throw in some politicking and all of a sudden you have an outrage over a casuality list that compares favorably to the first one and a half minutes of the Battle of the Somme.

‘Nixon ended the war, correct?’

I think now i should question your historical knowledge, since you feel the need to question mine. Do you really think Nixon did a good job of ‘ending’ the war? Nixon war a Vietnam era President, who was a Republican. Hence my reference to him when someone put all the blame on Democrats. Nixon escalated the war when he said just the opposite in his campaign, and took part in some extremely shady wartime actions. If you fail to see that Nixon had any effect on the war, i dont think you have any right to accuse me of not knowing history.

‘Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there and done dabbled in the punk/anarchist Euro-scene, but then I grew up.’

I am neither a Punk or an Anarchist. And ‘growing up’ doesnt include becoming more conservative.

Omar, I can understand “Rap the Vote”, but “Punk”? hehehe, poor choice methinks. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there and done dabbled in the punk/anarchist Euro-scene, but then I grew up. As for my tip, it’s one thing to read and study all the literature, but if you look around you, there shouldn’t be any problem finding Nam vets for some first hand stories of the ins & outs.

As for myself, had the war dragged on a few more years, I would have volunteered as opposed waiting to being drafted, if college wasn’t viable, but that’s where I’m coming from.

What im saying is, Nixon didnt do any better of a job than any of the guys who came before him. Far from it.

‘And communist oppression was very much a reality in post-colonial Vietnam, not to mention NK, Cambodia and China.’

Im quite used to this somewhat arrogant attitude. Im not being patronizing, but in Vietnam and China, its a fact most people supported the ‘commies.’ As i said, the US was scared to have elections in Vietnam for this very reason.

‘Keep in mind, you are talking to a young man too young to remember the vietnam war, let alone who was president when.’

So what….. im a young man….and a Brit…….and so have no right to voice my opinions on Vietnam? How silly. American and military History is my major. Dont get saying i dont know who the Presidents were, or suggesting i know nothing about US history or Vietnam.

‘Tip to Omar: leave the punk attitude at the door and with a little respect, you may get to hear the rest of the story that pop culture conveniently failed to cover.’

I dont need your ‘tips.’ Im not a Punk, and never was. I link to Punk Voter as it encourages young voters to get out there and register. It doesnt mean i am a punk, or a pop culture whore.

It is my fear that the no-win thought evident in the Viet Nam era has not been wholly excercized, despite the recent drum-beats and flag-waving. Our defeat of Saddam’s Iraq was quick and decisive, but what are we doing there now? What are our objectives?

And, of course, Kerry would make things worse, contrary to the liberals’ bluster. He does not have an estimate of a definite conclusion earlier than five years. Combine that with U.N. intervention (a Kerry hallmark) and we have the makings of a true quagmire.

Omar’s introduction to Americana wouldn’t be complete until he’s had the opportunity to sit down and listen to a few vets.

Tip to Omar: leave the punk attitude at the door and with a little respect, you may get to hear the rest of the story that pop culture conveniently failed to cover.

Btw, I was just in London yesterday and Punk still lives trudges on, albeit a little older, pudgier, flabbier, saggier and what have you. Have you ever seen a 40-something Nancy Spungen-wannabe with a graying mohawk? Not pretty.

Oh, and Omar, is that *your* website, or just a reflection of your associations?
-Zola

You mean like secret “Democrat” Richard Nixon? Heh.

As I recall, JFK got us into Nam after botching the Bay of Pigs, LBJ mucked it up and Nixon was left holding the bag. I don’t recall Nixon being the secret politician behind JFK & LBJ’s action.

Also, don’t look at Nam without taking into account all the world events (fallen dominoes) leading up to it. for example, expanding Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe–remember the iron curtain?

While most of the world may not have had a dog in this fight against communisim, we certainly did if for no other reason than that a significant portion of Americans have sentimental or familial ties back to those European countries in turmoil. So in that sense, LawWife is eminiently correct that Americans have an moral obligation to assist and protect innocent people. It’s one thing to have immigrants coming to America of their initiative to seek a better life, it’s another to have boatloads of refugees.

And then came Nam and the need to stablize the damage done by France’s de-colonization. The fact that we had to work with Diem is rather unfortunate given his excesses, but within the context of the times, regime change wasn’t a tactical option. And communist oppression was very much a reality in post-colonial Vietnam, not to mention NK, Cambodia and China.

The fact that it was a politician’s war is a carryover from the Korean War. However misguided that strategy was, the last thing we wanted, but got anyway was a mass of SE Asian refugees.

What Jean Francois did after returning home and while still a soldier was beyond the pale. No matter how you slice it, Kerry had no business talking to Vietnamese officials in Paris under any circumstances as long as his solemn oath was in effect, unless he was sent there to represent our government–NO, diplomatic envoy on behalf of Ted Kennedy doesn’t count.

If 10% of what he claimed was true, where is the outrage at his own personal war crimes? In my mind, chasing down and killing a half-naked wounded teenager in the back is hardly courageous, let alone capturing a woman and leaving a dead child behind.

But that’s war–neither pretty nor neat, tho we, above any other, do try to limit collateral damage and civillian loss of life.

Fortunately for us, post 9/11, “Homey” don’t play that anymore. If we fight, we’ll fight to win, unilaterally if need be. And my hope is that we will never ever be the “good people” standing around doing nothing while evil spreads unchallenged.

Evil is something that practically non-existent Armenia can attest to after 2500 years of invasion and oppression by neighbors. But then again, schadenfreude is an all too common human trait.

Omar – give me more information on how Kerry’s actions weren’t treasonous. I wasn’t being sarcastic earlier. I would be incredibly interested in knowing what you seem to know. ~ No, I still don’t believe the Vietnam War was a horrible mistake, based on what I have read. I believe it was poorly executed. It wasn’t Nixon who started it, now was it? Kennedy planted the seeds of involvement, then Johnson was the one who really put the U.S. troops in the fray.