A trip to Vietnam gives some pretty immediate feedback on just how misguided our war strategies were. 25 years following the end of WWII, the destruction from the war was still apparent everywhere in Germany, Italy, Eastern Europe, and Russia. This was true despite the Marshall Plan and major efforts at reconstruction.
25 years following our withdrawal, you could not tell there had ever been a war except from the missing limbs of the survivors and the complete absence of wildlife. This was true despite the fact that Vietnam had operated in isolation because of American embargoes until 1992. The reason was simple. Vietnam had no infrastructure to destroy: no major road systems, no major rail systems, no major ports, no electrical grid, etc., etc. The idea of winning by bombing someone back to the middle ages assumes that they are not already there. I am very skeptical of all claims that we might have "won" had support for the war remained strong.
Again, had the American Press not aided the communist, the war would have ended in 1968-69. President Nixon's goal of, peace with honor could have been achieved if not for the support the communist received by much of the U S Press. The Vietnamese learned how to play the press like a puppet to thier benefit and that cost us another 20,000-25,000 dead.
quote:The Tet Offensive demonstrated, yet again, that the assurances given by the Generals concerning the effectiveness of our efforts were hot air. CIA intelligence reports from the time indicated that bombing was accomplishing nothing and was not expected to accomplish
Hot air? The communist were on their knees after the Tet Offensive. Had we used the Tet Offensive as a reason to start bombing the north, they would have worked much harder for peace at the talks in Paris. But, then they realized the American Press was on their side. CIA Intelligence stated that bombing the jungles of S Vietnam was ineffective that that we need to concentrate on the Ho supply line and the the ports of the north which Nixion beleived to be true. That's why we went into Cambodia and incresed our attacks on the north. I believe your statement above to be a bit "revisionist".
Again, just like Iraq, Vietnam was a war we should have never fought. However, it was the American Press in both cases that has given aide to the enemy.
Of course, my bladder incontinence isn't from laughing so hard, its part of the Cronkite-Clinton-Carter communist conspiracy to rule the universe and give us all leaky bladders! It's also their fault the latches on my barn door broke. And my truck squeaks, and the air-conditioner isn't as cold as I'd like. Oh wait, that's Biden's department. :-P
Interesting that you are concerned with the missing wildlife. There's a lot more than that missing.
I'm not sure we should have been there in the first place but I AM sure we should go ahead and win if we go. Cronkite turned public opinion so that a bunch of idiot politicians started trying to micro manage a war from overseas...sound familiar? You can't win that way. War is an us or them proposition. We decided it would be us because of men like Cronkite.
Originally Posted by Franco View Post
After North Vietnam's Tet Offensive, we had the communist on their knees. They took such heavy loses after Tet that Gen. Giap wasn't sure how long it would take for them to recover, if they ever would. Then came Mr Cronkite telling the American people after Tet that we were in a war we wouldn't win and turned the east and west coasters against the war. The communist saw the turning tide in the USA and that gave them the determination to persevere. The North Vietnamesse can thank Mr Cronkite for breeding new life into thier struggle!
Here is the Constitutions definition of treason:
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
And then there is that little thing in the First Amendment of our Constitution that protects free speech. Cmon Subrock I expected a little better from you:p