Bush needs to clean up his mess

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