Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
McAullife dispatches.

I am not familiar with Mr McAullife.


Kerry was testifying before the Senate in 1971. Nixon had been elected
in 1968 and initiated his "Vietnamization" policy to draw down US
troop strength and turn over the war to the ARVN. By April of '71, the
US force had been reduced by half, bombing of NVN had been in hiatus
since 1968.


Yes, that is as I recall.

Arguably the testimony of Kerry encouraged the aggressiveness of the
NVA and led to the increased infiltration that led to the commencement
of Linebacker in May of '72, the siege of An Loch, the intensification
of the siege of Khe Sanh and the final destruction of Hue. The
encouragement of the NV probably increased the destruction rather than
reducing it.

I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's
testimony.


The current government of Vietnam has estimated that we killed 1.4
million of their soldiers. That does not include wounded soldiers
or civilians killed or wounded. The United Staes won every militarily
significant battle of the Vietnam war. And still the communists
did not give up. Kerry realized that the war in Vietnam could not
be won by military means. It could only have been prolonged.

Once again the attribution of such a strategic view to a Lt(j.g.)
aboard a boat in MR IV is incredible.

Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary
Americans at that time.


Of course the "current goverment of Vietnam" would have a high
estimate--they are in Hanoi. They were the enemy. That was who we were
trying to kill!

If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer
and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they
didn't give up?


We do not know the answers to the questions I posed above because
men like Kerry did speak out. We did pull out in 1973 and the
surviving POWs did come home. It has been argued that live POWS
were held back by the Vietnamese and others as hostages or slaves
but really, would fewer have been withheld had we remained in the
war longer?

GMAFB! We started our pullout in '68. Despite Kerry's best efforts to
encourage capitulation which wouldn't have resulted in a return of the
POWs we continued negotiation, brought military pressure to bear in
Linebacker I/II and succeeded in getting an incredibly rapid return of
the POWs. It wasn't BECAUSE of Kerry, it was IN SPITE OF him.

Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would
ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war
continued?


What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?

He might now be accepted in his newly desired role of American hero.

I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing.

--

FF