BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...

"Mark Test" wrote in message
...
"Your Name Here" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:07:18 -0600, "Mark Test"
wrote:

(Snip)

Hmmm IIRC, in 1973 Nixon had brought the N. Vietnamese to the
table, (Paris peace accords), so victory was close. Then the democrats
used watergate to get Nixon out of office and then they cut and run.

My answer: we should have stayed and won the war, not cut and run.

Your chronology is a little faulty. The war ended for us in March of 1973, and
the Congressional investigation of Watergate didn't even start until May of that
year. You need to remember that Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, started
and expanded the war and that in spite of it escalating, Johnson couldn't find a
way to get out of it short of turning it into a nuclear war. Johnson tried his
best to get it won but, although we had continued to win battle after battle,
they just kept coming and kept throwing people at us regardless of how many of
them we wiped out. Anyway, having lived through it, I don't recall that the
decision to negotiate the end of the war was one of those Democrat v. Republican
political things that seem to be so common today. Even if it was, it would have
been a case of the Republicans wanting to bail out of a Democratic war.....they
were the ones who did the cutting and running, if that's what you want to call
it.

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it was hardly
going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened was that we pulled out
and left the South Vietnamese to continue the fight on their own. I think they
only lasted a couple of months after our last troops left.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" writes:

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it
was hardly going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened
was that we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to continue the
fight on their own. I think they only lasted a couple of months
after our last troops left.

While a Dem personally, I'll point out a flaw in Z's description.
Ford was POTUS, and concluded he could not fly air support for RVN in
'75 because the Democratically controlled congress would not provide
funding for further involvement. Lack of US material and air support
were among the reasons for the RVN's collapse, but their own handling
and behaviour at Ban Me Thuot didn't help.

My opinion is that the country was not prepared to continue, so it
mattered little which party controlled Congress. I admit that is
conjecture.

The point is, Nixon slipped the US out by promising support he couldn't
really be sure would be provided if needed. It was needed, and it
wasn't provided. Thieu rightly believed at the time that he'd been
sold out for empty promises, but there was nothing he could do about it.

(Comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq left as exercises.)

-dB

--
Butterflies tell me to say:
"The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
represent those of Oracle Corporation."

David Brower wrote:
"George Z. Bush" writes:

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it
was hardly going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened
was that we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to continue the
fight on their own. I think they only lasted a couple of months
after our last troops left.

While a Dem personally, I'll point out a flaw in Z's description.
Ford was POTUS, and concluded he could not fly air support for RVN in
'75 because the Democratically controlled congress would not provide
funding for further involvement. Lack of US material and air support
were among the reasons for the RVN's collapse, but their own handling
and behaviour at Ban Me Thuot didn't help.

My opinion is that the country was not prepared to continue, so it
mattered little which party controlled Congress. I admit that is
conjecture.

The point is, Nixon slipped the US out by promising support he couldn't
really be sure would be provided if needed. It was needed, and it
wasn't provided. Thieu rightly believed at the time that he'd been
sold out for empty promises, but there was nothing he could do about it.

(Comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq left as exercises.)

Although the flaw you found was too insignificant for me to have to acknowledge
or take exception to, I don't see any notable difference in our views on the
factors leading to the collapse of the South Vietnamese gpvernment and its
surrender to North Vietnam. As to your reference to Afghanistand and Iraq, as a
nation we seem to have sadly made a hallmark of empty promises.

Whatever happened to "our word is our bond"?

George Z.



-dB