Bush needs to clean up his mess

Ed Rasimus wrote:

:No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:had the political will to do so.

The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
as long as required.

It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
did anything more.

Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.

--
"Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
-- John Rain, "Rain Storm"

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

:No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:had the political will to do so.

The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
as long as required.

It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
did anything more.

Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.


Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked
nuclear war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the
million men in 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.

Vince

"Vince" wrote in message
. ..
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:


Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.


Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.


You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.

View it as the war after Korea.
Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.

That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
an actual shooting war with China, again.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" wrote:


"Vince" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:


Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.


Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.


You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.

View it as the war after Korea.
Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.

That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
an actual shooting war with China, again.


First, let me suggest that you edit more carefully--my name at the top
of this has nothing to do with either of the quotes you've retained. I
said neither.

Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
could not get the job done.

Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
NOT involved either.

Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
parallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
were a supporter of NVN.

Much different situation than Korea.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" wrote:


"Vince" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:


Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.


Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.


You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.

View it as the war after Korea.
Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.

That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
an actual shooting war with China, again.


First, let me suggest that you edit more carefully--my name at the top
of this has nothing to do with either of the quotes you've retained. I
said neither.

The '' in the left margin make it clear as to whom wrote what.
SOME newsreaders are prone to misinterpreting plain text as
formatting instructions which may oscure that.


Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
could not get the job done.

Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
NOT involved either.

Who made the MIGs flown by the Communists in Korea?

The Soviets would have vetoed UN action in Korea had
they not walked out on the Security Council. That's a
mistake (assuming it was a mistake) they have yet to repeat.


Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
parallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
were a supporter of NVN.

Much different situation than Korea.

Also Korea was a Penninsula, the communists could not spread
the war to neighboring countries like they did in IndoChina.

But to what degree was Vietnam different precisely because we
adopted a different strategy against the North?

--

FF

wrote:

:But to what degree was Vietnam different precisely because we
:adopted a different strategy against the North?

That's why the outcome was different. The war, of course, would have
been different, regardless. Not because of there being adjacent
countries, but because of the difference between triple-canopy jungle
and mountains.

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

Ed Rasimus wrote:

:On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" wrote:
:
:"Vince" wrote in message
m...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
: leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
: Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
: war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
: 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.
:
:You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.
:
:View it as the war after Korea.
:Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
:large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.
:
:That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
:an actual shooting war with China, again.
:
:Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
:Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
:the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
:conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
:that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
:could not get the job done.
:
:Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
:NOT involved either.

Also note that there was bombing just pretty close to Chinese
territory (if not actually in it) which may have had a bit to do with
their decision to send troops.

:Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
:and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
:into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
:front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
arallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
:were a supporter of NVN.
:
:Much different situation than Korea.

And, as I said, if we'd just said we'd stop well short of the Chinese
border there probably wouldn't have been a Chinese reaction at all.

--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush

Vince wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ed Rasimus wrote:
:
: :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
: :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
: :had the political will to do so.
:
: The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
: which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
: as long as required.
:
: It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
: little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
: did anything more.
:
: Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
: leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
:Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked
:nuclear war if we did that.

They weren't in a position to want to start such a war. Just follow
standard procedure under international law and declare North Vietnam
as blockaded and sink anything going in or out.

:Not to mention That we didn't have the
:million men in 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.

If we'd been serious about winning we could have gotten them.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

:No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:had the political will to do so.

The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
as long as required.

It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
did anything more.

Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.

And Red China jumps in to protect NVN with World War III starting shortly
thereafter.

A true Military genius you are.


--
"Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
-- John Rain, "Rain Storm"

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:04:46 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.

And Red China jumps in to protect NVN with World War III starting shortly
thereafter.

A true Military genius you are.

Both you and Vince presume that Russia and China would have acted on
their threat. From recent history we know that the Russians were as
rattled by the Cuban Missle Crisis as we were. Not sure about the
Chinese (Mao made some pretty remarkable statements about China's
ability to sustain casualties in a nuclear war.

We should also remember that Chinese nuclear capability in the
mid-'60s was not the same as Russian capability during the same time
period.

You also seem to forget that in '59 the Sino-Soviet Split happened and
Chinese influence in S.E. Asia was not near what Russian was.

While playing "brinksmanship" is not something you want to do on a
daily basis drawing a "line in the sand" sometimes is necessary. And
there is an odds on chance that if we had done it then the Russians
would have backed down, as they did not have the naval power to
prevent us from doing what we could do, and the Chinese were not about
to help the Russians (and the Vietnamese were never all that
comfortable with the Chinese).

Again, the picture is not nearly as clear as you paint it.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão