Hanoi Jane says she's sorry for sitting on NVA AA gun during Vietnam war

[jdd2007]

Attacking grandmothers

[SlowwHand]

She was young, stupid, and rich.
If you look around, most have or have had 2 of those .covered.
She was still a commie traitor, and that can't be undone.
If she's sorry, goody for her.

[DRoseDARs]

Slowwy!

You never call, you never write, you never tell anyone to move to Cuba anymore.

[Barinthus]

[Admiral]

I don't really see why people are still hating on her. If the conflict actually had any strategic importance, than her actions could have been bad, but the fact is that we lost Vietnam, and yet, global communism didn't carry on to ravage the world. Also, even if her actions are construed to be harmful to the moral or whathaveyou of the US troops, it would only matter if Vietnam was a conflict that the US could have won.

[SlowwHand]

ok, a commie doggy.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Admiral
I don't really see why people are still hating on her. If the conflict actually had any strategic importance, than her actions could have been bad, but the fact is that we lost Vietnam, and yet, global communism didn't carry on to ravage the world. Also, even if her actions are construed to be harmful to the moral or whathaveyou of the US troops, it would only matter if Vietnam was a conflict that the US could have won.

we didn't actually lose the vietnam war. We just didn't win.

[SlowwHand]

Politicians didn't let military do their job.

[Dis]

the war was unwinnable. But technically it was the South Vietnamese that lost the war. Because up until we left, we were accomplishing our mission (a non communist S. Vietnam).

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Dissident


we didn't actually lose the vietnam war. We just didn't win.

You are correct, if you limit your view of the conflict to the military. But, war is an instrument of political policy (clausewitz: "war is politics by other means."), and especially in a people's war, the politics become much more important than the actual fighting. The goal of Vietnam was the people of Vietnam, and in that sense, we lost. The Viet Cong managed to set up a governmental structure in the villages even while the villages were being menaced by the US military, and these structures were self-standing, in that they did not fall when VC troops vacated them. The same could not be said of the south vietnamese government, which did fall when US support was withdrawn.

Further, there was a disjuncture between the two sides as to what the forces in the conflict actually were. The US entered the conflict believing that they were fighting work communism, which is in a sense correct. However, the conflict in Vietnam was really just a continuation of the fight for self-determination in European colonies. A fight which the colonials never lost. Even in cases like Algeria, when France won most of the battles, de Gaulle realized that the will of the people could not be changed by military force, and withdrew. In this context, it was foolish of the US to join in the losing side of the conflict.

[Max Webster]

Jane Fonda

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Politicians didn't let military do their job.

Oh BS.

[Barinthus]

Really, chegitz? Perhaps if Bush Sr let the military do their job, we wouldn't had that Iraq invasion in the first place since Saddam would have been already took care of back then.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Politicians didn't let military do their job.

That is one argument. Another is that the politicians recognized something that the military didn't (a situation that also arose in Korea).

Specifically, the WWII concept of total war was no longer a strategic option, as nuclear conflict was the end result, and that nuclear conflict is not politics (in the sense that the extermination of the human race cannot be held within the framework of interhuman relations). Also, responding to the suggestion that we should have occupied the North, that wouldn't have accomplished anything, other than perhaps forcing the Chinese to intervene as they did in Korea. The idea that occupying the north would succede is based upon the notion that we were, in some sense, fighting a conventional conflict, wherein cutting the enemies communications would paralyse them. But the north started out as an entirely guerrilla force, and would have reverted to it had the US taken Hanoi. There are no real communications that can be cut in a guerilla war, and a victory by manuevre is meaningless. Which leaves us with the victory through attrition, which is the fight that the US did fight in Vietnam and lost.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Admiral
Further, there was a disjuncture between the two sides as to what the forces in the conflict actually were. The US entered the conflict believing that they were fighting work communism, which is in a sense correct. However, the conflict in Vietnam was really just a continuation of the fight for self-determination in European colonies. A fight which the colonials never lost. Even in cases like Algeria, when France won most of the battles, de Gaulle realized that the will of the people could not be changed by military force, and withdrew. In this context, it was foolish of the US to join in the losing side of the conflict.

Excellent point.