Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed
the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon
intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam,
the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.




Holy Crap Harry!

I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes
me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in.

I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account.
You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt.

But, here's the highlights:

Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this,
the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained
for this type of warfare.

Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate
were just that .... fruitless.
Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap
out of 'em.

Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings
stop.

The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again.

Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated.

There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side)
who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at
this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it
comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North
was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted.
They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating
table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all
the political pressure back in the States to end the war.

It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military
did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and
handicaps imposed by the politicians.

I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities.
It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life,
smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad
backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's
not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team,
rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for
it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times
better than the old one I am familiar with.

Eisboch




I don't minimize or deny the role of Kennedy and Johnson in the Vietnam
mess. Our involvement there, though, predates them, and has to do with a
misuse of the SEATO treaty in the early 1950's during Ike's first term.

I also am not commenting on the efficacy of our military in Vietnam.
It was a stupid war, fought for stupid reasons, and had nothing to do
with defending the United States. I don't know why you slightly younger
old farts and older old farts keep trying to make something honorable
about the catastrophe there. Assuredly, many of our troops performed
admirably there, but for nought. Propping up right-wing (or left-wing)
dictators should not be our thing, eh?

We got our asses handed to us in Vietnam. No matter how you rationalize
it, that is fact.

And when we finally pull out of Iraq, it is going to dissolve into
chaos. Again. No matter what we have done or how long we stay. It's the
nature of the beast there. And we will have wasted up to 5000 US lives
by then, and two trillion dollars and for what? For nought.

Keith nuttle wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote:
Janet O'Leary wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...

I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding
about
100 Million USD worth of crude.
any updates?
===
If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat
gets
reposessed, and
your photo is int he paper..
If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have
enough ships..
Is this country F..ked up or what.
Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Harrrrrry!
What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for
crying it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars.

Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what
will we have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because
of our protracted militarism there?

What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of
our brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our
humanitarian efforts.

I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What,
precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much.
The military did not have and does not have a problem winning
battles. Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the
civilians in control of the military.
I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in
Vietnam. Period.

We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive
positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM
missile stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ.
Picking targets at lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ.



Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also
bombed the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight,
Nixon intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against
north vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since
world war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.
The people of that time decided it was better to die of drug overdoses,
sexual transmitted disease and the like rather than die in Vietnam.

You should read what the situation was in Vietnam not what the hippies
and newspapers reported.


Uh-huh. Right. The situation in Vietnam was that we were propping up
right-wing dictators. When Buddhist monks set themselves on fire to
protest the government we support, what does that say about us?

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives
us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?

I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent
civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has
since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch




Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're
not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't
have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?
--
John H.

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives
us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent
civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has
since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch



Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're
not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't
have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500, Boater wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote:
Janet O'Leary wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about
100 Million USD worth of crude.
any updates?
===
If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets
reposessed, and
your photo is int he paper..
If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough
ships..
Is this country F..ked up or what.
Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Harrrrrry!
What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying
it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars.

Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we
have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our
protracted militarism there?

What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our
brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian
efforts.

I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What,
precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much.
The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles.
Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in
control of the military.
I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam.
Period.
We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive
positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile
stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at
lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ.



Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed
the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon
intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north
vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world
war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.

You should know, Harry, you were there!

WAFL!


I didn't contribute to the loss. You did.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500, Boater wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote:
Janet O'Leary wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about
100 Million USD worth of crude.
any updates?
===
If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets
reposessed, and
your photo is int he paper..
If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough
ships..
Is this country F..ked up or what.
Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Harrrrrry!
What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying
it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars.

Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we
have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our
protracted militarism there?

What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our
brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian
efforts.

I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What,
precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much.
The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles.
Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in
control of the military.
I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam.
Period.

We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive
positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile
stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at
lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ.




Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed
the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon
intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north
vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world
war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.

You should know, Harry, you were there!

WAFL!
--
John H.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:03:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...


Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed
the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon
intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north vietnam,
the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.




Holy Crap Harry!

I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really makes
me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in.

I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account.
You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt.

But, here's the highlights:

Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of this,
the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained
for this type of warfare.

Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to negotiate
were just that .... fruitless.
Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap
out of 'em.

Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings
stop.

The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again.

Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated.

There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's side)
who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at
this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it
comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the North
was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted.
They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating
table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to all
the political pressure back in the States to end the war.

It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military
did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and
handicaps imposed by the politicians.

I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities.
It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life,
smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert myriad
backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's
not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a team,
rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for
it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times
better than the old one I am familiar with.

Eisboch



Ten times better, my ass.

Maybe eight and a half. No more.
--
John H.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:03:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...


Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed
the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon
intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north
vietnam,
the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.




Holy Crap Harry!

I normally give you credit for some intelligence, but this one really
makes
me wonder if Alzheimer's is setting in.

I won't even bother giving you details of the correct historical account.
You can research them for yourself if you want to, which I doubt.

But, here's the highlights:

Kennedy and especially LBJ micro managed a "limited" war. In spite of
this,
the military held it's own, even though not designed, equipped or trained
for this type of warfare.

Nixon came to office vowing to end the war. Fruitless attempts to
negotiate
were just that .... fruitless.
Call in the big guns and the big airplanes..... and start bombing the crap
out of 'em.

Next thing you know, we are at the table, seriously negotiating. Bombings
stop.

The North pulls an about face and a fast one .... Bombings start again.

Mad rush back to the table, and a cease fire is negotiated.

There's a book, written by someone who was "there" (and on the North's
side)
who gives a very interesting and detailed account of what was happening at
this critical point. Damned if I can remember the name of it, but when it
comes to me, I'll forward it. Bottom line was that unknown to us, the
North
was virtually on the brink of collapse when the bombings were restarted.
They were just about ready to surrender. We blew it at the negotiating
table, not recognizing this because the focus was on a cease fire due to
all
the political pressure back in the States to end the war.

It was a war poorly managed politically. It was a war that the military
did, as usual, what they were asked to do, despite the constraints and
handicaps imposed by the politicians.

I wish you had more experience with the military and it's capabilities.
It's an amazing organization that can take people from all walks of life,
smart and not so smart, black, white, rich, poor and somehow convert
myriad
backgrounds into a cohesive, organized and motivated organization. It's
not perfect by any means, but the concept of being a equal member of a
team,
rather than a standout produces an amazingly competent and efficient (for
it's size) organization. And the new, "volunteer" military is 10 times
better than the old one I am familiar with.

Eisboch



Ten times better, my ass.

Maybe eight and a half. No more.
--
John H.

He was referring to the officer ranks.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:11:15 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives
us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent
civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has
since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch



Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're
not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't
have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

That would be useful, which means he won't do it.

Why not just say, "I don't know." As no one knows much about him, that
would be a good answer.

You would be in good company, right along with Tom Brokaw!

One wonders why he didn't ask, after viewing the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAjs0vb94bc
--
John H.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:12:05 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:27:06 -0500, Boater wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:
On Nov 19, 9:09 am, Boater wrote:
Janet O'Leary wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
I heard that the Somalians captured a giant oil tanker holding about
100 Million USD worth of crude.
any updates?
===
If one takes a **** in the harbor ,, you go to jail, your boat gets
reposessed, and
your photo is int he paper..
If you hijack an oil tanker, the navy says they don't have enough
ships..
Is this country F..ked up or what.
Hey...it's the military.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Harrrrrry!
What? Our military (and I presume everyone else's) is famous for crying
it never has enough, and for wasting taxpayer dollars.

Tell me, Tim, after blowing a trillion and a half dollars, what will we
have gained in Iraq? What did we gain in Vietnam because of our
protracted militarism there?

What worked for us, militarily, was Desert Storm, Bosnia, some of our
brief incursions to keep the peace, and most of our humanitarian
efforts.

I'm supposed to be impressed by our massive array of ships? What,
precisely, are they doing at the moment? Not much.
The military did not have and does not have a problem winning battles.
Seems as if Viet Nam was a clusterf**k because of the civilians in
control of the military.
I've seen that myth about 1000 times. We got our ass kicked in Vietnam.
Period.
We lost very few battles. And when you are allowed only defensive
positions, you get hosed. Just like not being able to bomb the SAM missile
stockpiles that were stored on embassy row. F'n LBJ. Picking targets at
lunch was a favorite benny for LBJ.



Johnson was gone by January 1969. Nixon expanded the war and also bombed
the crap out of Cambodia and Laos. Then, with peace in sight, Nixon
intiated operation linebacker 2, a bombing campaign against north
vietnam, the biggest bombing campaign engaged in by the US since world
war ii.

We got our ass kicked in vietnam. Your delusions about the war won't
change that.

You should know, Harry, you were there!

WAFL!


I didn't contribute to the loss. You did.

Did your hero Kerry contribute to the loss?

My contribution to the loss was actually pretty small. I built roads,
bridges, a swimming pool, blew up some mines and booby traps, and watched
our dentists and doctors on varioius Dentcaps and Medcaps. I wasn't a hero
like Kerry.
--
John H.