1975: Saigon surrenders

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh no, religion is not strong in Russia. It has rebounded, but I wouldn't call them devoutly religious people.

Interesting. I go to a Russian ministry in my church, (best friend speaks fluent Russian,) where there are many devout religious recently immigrated Russians.

I would think Solzhenitsyn would disagree as well, as to the openness of Russians to Christianity.

[Lancer]

Fuk Hue ...Sorry Obiwan, that was for the guy that said we lost battles.

[TCO]

Actually I think this is true. I would add to your function a variable for pretext.

[gsmoove23]

Thats the response I was looking for

[Lancer]

We won Hue.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Afghanistan- By supporting the Mujahedeen vs. the secular government that gave rights to women. "

Said secular government was an unwanted communist government backed up by a foreign invader.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Of course Cambodia is related. You bombed the hell out of a non-participating country, thus laying the foundation of the Khmer Rouge, and the Vietnamese conducted the only military campaign in history most scholars, ever Restrictionsits, agree was a genuine case of humanitarian intervention when they got rid of them. An action which, of course, you condemned.

Buck, be HONEST. We did not bomb Cambodia. We bombe the NVA bases IN Cambodia. There is a major difference in nuance.

As to the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia, all I can remember is that most Americans highly approved of what they did. I know I did. Pol Pot and his Maoist crew of communist murderers were a nightmare when compared to the largely nationalistic if slightly deluded communists who ruled Vietnam.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned


Buck, be HONEST. We did not bomb Cambodia. We bombe the NVA bases IN Cambodia. There is a major difference in nuance.

Being that smart bombs were non-existant at the time and intelligence on Cambodian NVA sites was a load of dung there is little difference and nuance doesn't enter into the matter.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Menlas


Nothing comparable with the guerilla tactics perfectly well used by NV. The moral of the troops was completely different, too.

Come on. It's obvious that the Vietnam war was much more difficult than GW or Afghanistan.

Menlas, Kennedy knew full well that the ARVN were fighting a guerilla war in SV when he decided to introduce Americans into fighting. You can see a lot of the original documents from the Kennedy library. In making the decision to intervene, some in his close circle argued that the war could not be won unless we took out the North. But there were advisors who suggested that we could still win if we did not attack the North, that is, if we cut off the VC's supply lines and had a 10-1 advantage in field troops.

We all know that Kennedy made no real decision. He simply introduced troops to defer the decision to the future. But he was assassinated before that future came.

As we also know, Johnson deliberately keep American troop strenght well below the needed 10-1 ratio Kennedy thought was necessary to win a guerilla war. As a result, IIRC, VC and NVA forces always equaled or exceeded our own in total numbers. In addition, because they could base in protected Cambodian sanctuaries, we normally were outnumbered by the NVA in most engagements because they could choose the time and place of major combat. This is not what one wants in a guerilla war.

Note, that when Johnson rallied the nation in late '64 with the Tonkin Gulf incident and resolution, many, if not most, of us believed we were going to war against NV. That is what the Gulf of Tonkin incident was about - an NV attack on US carriers. However, Johnson did not invade the North. In addition, he handcuffed our troops in the South by limiting how they could operate and by foreclosing going after the Cambodian bases.

In the end, Johnson personally hamstrung the US military and knowingly put them into a meatgrinder. What the US military could have done had it been allowed to conduct the war properly - with an invasion and conquest of the North - we shall never know. But in my view, the war could have been over by mid 1965 had Johnson decided on victory and not a bloodbath.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


We all know how that worked in Korea. No one here realizes that an escalation in our tactics=escalation in Chinese and Russian funding and the possiblity of their entry into the war. These Cold War non-wars were inherently unwinnable, especially when you're fighting a country abutting communist China.

This is more defeatist crap.

The only reason China invaded Korea is because Truman made it clear that he would not take the war to China if they did.

The same thing would have worked with the Vietnam war. You intervene, you die.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Anybody here read "A Rumor of War" by Philip Caputo? It's a very good, objective view of the war by a soldier who fought in it, and who later became a journalist.

It's not at all a patriotic flag waver, but it's also careful to stay away from romanticizing or victimizing the soldiers on either side. Like I said, a good read.

[Dis]

I still say the U.S. won that war

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I still say the U.S. won that war

You do? Then where is South Vietnam on the map?

[Dis]

I didn't say which war. I meant ww2

[Imran Siddiqui]

Afghanistan- By supporting the Mujahedeen vs. the secular government that gave rights to women.

The vast majority of the SU- while western republics, such as thew baltic states are doing better, all others, which are the vast majority of the population of the SU are doing significantly worse, with the complete collapse of physical and socio-economical infrastructure. In central Asia, your new allies are just as autocratic as the soviet government, but are weaker, and allow muslim extremists to gain ground.

Still worth it .

Relative gains, man, not absolute gains is the important thing here. The collapse of Communism was all worth it.