Bush needs to clean up his mess

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.
:
:Because that strategy worked so well in Korea?

South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
is what?

--
"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:
[snip]


South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
is what?

Full of exploited proletariat living under a feudal system straight out
of the early middle ages.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:[snip]
:
:
: South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
: is what?
:
:Full of exploited proletariat living under a feudal system straight out
f the early middle ages.

"Exploited proletariat"?

snicker

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
: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.
:
:Because that strategy worked so well in Korea?

South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
is what?

Your point is well made. The Russian threat to use nuclear
weapons should we send ground forces North of the DMZ was
NOT widely published (to say the least) at the time. How well
established is that?

Assuming it was true, keep in mind the perception that it was
the Cuban missle crisis that knocked Kruschev out of power.




In another article in this thread, (direct replies via Google have
expired)

Ed Rasimus wrote:
...

That canard about who went to war and who went to the Guard has been
discussed at length in R.A.M. Flying single seat, single engine
tactical jets for 4.5 years trumps driving a fishing boat upriver for
six months and then calling everyone you served with a war criminal in
the balance of most of the folks I deal with.

A great many men served on the Swift Boats. Refering to them
as "fishing boats" denigrates the service of all of those men,
not just the one whom you dislike.

As to why he chose fighter jets, GWB (who flew for a bit less
than four years but that's a nit) said he enlisted in the Texas
AFNG as a alternative to service in Vietnam.

--

FF