Why is Stealth So Important?

"Mike Marron" wrote

...the South Vietnamese simply didn't want to fight for
their_own_country!

South Vietnam was designed in Washington DC. It was a fake
country. The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated
the American hegemony.

Sometimes Gene comes up with some amusing (and damn plausible)
stuff, but I've also detected quite a lot of bitterness and anger in
his posts that is somewhat disconcerting.

With only 30% of Americans turning out to vote, I am convinced that
we will be bankrupt by 2010, and all we will have is 1500 Nukes, no
oil, and Argentina's default will have been a carnival in comparison.

Unlike my grandfather, I don't plan to starve in a hobo camp, and have
enough ammunition to see me through the first two adjustments.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:07:36 -0600, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Mike Marron" wrote

...the South Vietnamese simply didn't want to fight for
their_own_country!

South Vietnam was designed in Washington DC. It was a fake
country. The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated
the American hegemony.

So, the Geneva Accords that divided Indochina after the withdrawal of
the French in 1954 were simply a fairy tale?

Might want to look up a definition of "hegemony" while you're in the
library as well. We certainly weren't a hegemon during the '60s and
'70s. There was quite a bit of multi-polarity during the period what
with the US, USSR, NATO, emerging Japan, Warsaw Pact, China, etc. We
might be in a position of hegemonic control today, but definitely not
during the Vietnam War.

Sometimes Gene comes up with some amusing (and damn plausible)
stuff, but I've also detected quite a lot of bitterness and anger in
his posts that is somewhat disconcerting.

With only 30% of Americans turning out to vote, I am convinced that
we will be bankrupt by 2010, and all we will have is 1500 Nukes, no
oil, and Argentina's default will have been a carnival in comparison.

What is the relationship between the number of Americans that turn out
to vote, bankruptcy and nuclear weapons. The voting percentage in the
2000 presidential election was a lot closer to 55% and in some states,
such as mine, presidential election participation hovers near 80%.
(Which isn't to say that is a good thing. Ignorant voters are a worse
danger than non-voters.)

Bankruptcy? Hardly. The economy has weathered an intense blow
post-9/11, but seems to be rebounding nicely.

1500 nukes? Nah, we've got a bigger number than that.

No oil? C'mon, you need to review some of the strategic estimates of
US reserves. We've got plenty and are only buying offshore oil to save
our own resources.

Unlike my grandfather, I don't plan to starve in a hobo camp, and have
enough ammunition to see me through the first two adjustments.

Seems grandpa sowed his oats before starving, but didn't seem to
increase the intellectual capability of the family gene pool. Might
lean toward a greater dependence on reading and education rather than
firearms to see you through the adjustments.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

So, the Geneva Accords that divided Indochina after the withdrawal of
the French in 1954 were simply a fairy tale?

Yes.

What is the relationship between the number of Americans that turn out
to vote, bankruptcy and nuclear weapons.

Illegitimacy.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:sD0Nb.112$ce2.3@okepread03...
The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated the
American hegemony.


The vast majority of South Vietnamese people did not fight for
their country. The average peasant had no concept of Vietnam
being "a country". Most of the people lived in rural areas.
They knew little of and cared less about what happened outside
their own village.

They wanted to work in peace, with minimum interference from
whatever government was in place. These people were bewildered
farmers with no clear idea of what was happening -- except when
shells, bombs and bullets landed on them -- or when Vietcong
agents extorted payments from them, or murdered their family
members who questioned the Vietcong and their protection rackets.

About 80% of South Vietnamese were Buddhists, so some of them
objected when overzealous Catholics like Diem tried to push
the monks around. But then again, the Communists championed
atheism, and that idea was even less popular.

The vast majority of people who supported the Vietcong did so
because they were afraid of punitive action, not because they
were patriotic.

"Evan Brennan" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote
The Vietnamese fought for their country and terminated the
American hegemony.


The vast majority of South Vietnamese people did not fight for
their country. The average peasant had no concept of Vietnam
being "a country". Most of the people lived in rural areas.
They knew little of and cared less about what happened outside
their own village.

They wanted to work in peace, with minimum interference from
whatever government was in place. These people were bewildered
farmers with no clear idea of what was happening -- except when
shells, bombs and bullets landed on them -- or when Vietcong
agents extorted payments from them, or murdered their family
members who questioned the Vietcong and their protection rackets.

About 80% of South Vietnamese were Buddhists, so some of them
objected when overzealous Catholics like Diem tried to push
the monks around. But then again, the Communists championed
atheism, and that idea was even less popular.

The vast majority of people who supported the Vietcong did so
because they were afraid of punitive action, not because they
were patriotic.

You are generalizing. Peasants never get a say in any country (including
the United States). There were enough intellectuals and educated people
fighting, that the peasants didn't count.

On top of that you seem to be talking about the wrong folks. I'm talking
about the Vietnamese that rejected the countries division into two
regions under the promise of a vote. When the vote didn't take place,
the rebels in the South began their inevitable fall.

South Vietnam was a fake country. It never existed except in the eyes
of the invading/colonizing forces.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:HGFNb.310$ce2.102@okepread03...
Peasants never get a say in any country (including the United States).


That might make sense, if not for the laundry list of Peasant Wars
of the 20th Century. : )

Eric Wolf wrote the classic study of the same name.


There were enough intellectuals and educated people fighting


Nearly all the South Vietnamese intellectuals and educated people
lived in large cities...where the Communists had the least support.
That is one reason why the 1968 Tet Offensive failed. There was
no general uprising of the people in the cities, as the Commies
had hoped.

The Vietcong's main support base was, in fact, drawn from peasants
in the countryside.


the peasants didn't count.


LOL.


On top of that you seem to be talking about the wrong folks. I'm talking
about the Vietnamese that rejected the countries division into two
regions under the promise of a vote.


If peasants didn't count, very few people would reject such a division.


South Vietnam was a fake country.


No more phony than the Communist regime. Giap himself was a Catholic.
Bottom line is that the South lost funding and support from their
foreign allies at a time when the North did not.

The Vietcong guerrillas nonetheless failed, the North Vietnamese Army
was forced to take over their fight, and the war was decided with
conventional battles, years after American ground troops pulled out
of Vietnam.