"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally) kicked
the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the news, on
days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least not until we
reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???



In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on, the
quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between 8
and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?



You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20 times
more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally)
kicked the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the
news, on days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least not
until we reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a
disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???

Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow MacArthur
to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N. Koreans back to
it.

What would you have preferred happened, Doug? Let Pusan (and the Americans
holed up there) be overrun instead?

Harry says we fought to a draw. Not a chance. Truman's objective was to
recapture Seoul and reestablish an independent South Korea. In that case,
we clearly won.

Had MacArthur pushed into N. Korea as *he* wanted, we'd have probably
engaged the entire Soviet military (instead of just their fighter pilots)
*and* the Chinese. Inevitably, nukes would have been used.

If we "only fought to a draw", it was because of the looming threat of a
nuclear engagement with Russia. This is an example of how nukes tip the
balance of power. And this is precisely why a nuclear Iran is such a scary
thought.







In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on,
the quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between 8
and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?

Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't we
bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?
We'll never know "how long would've been enough" since we didn't fight that
war appropriately.





You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20
times more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

In Korea we did. Does that still mean that we "fought to a draw"?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally)
kicked the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the
news, on days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least not
until we reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a
disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???

Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

What would you have preferred happened, Doug? Let Pusan (and the
Americans holed up there) be overrun instead?

Harry says we fought to a draw. Not a chance. Truman's objective was to
recapture Seoul and reestablish an independent South Korea. In that case,
we clearly won.

Had MacArthur pushed into N. Korea as *he* wanted, we'd have probably
engaged the entire Soviet military (instead of just their fighter pilots)
*and* the Chinese. Inevitably, nukes would have been used.

If we "only fought to a draw", it was because of the looming threat of a
nuclear engagement with Russia. This is an example of how nukes tip the
balance of power. And this is precisely why a nuclear Iran is such a
scary thought.







In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on,
the quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between
8 and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?

Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?
We'll never know "how long would've been enough" since we didn't fight
that war appropriately.

Air Force generals who know what they're talking about were telling Nixon
that the bombing was not producing results. Pretty unusual advice from guys
whose specialty is dropping bombs, and who had been doing exactly that to
Hanoi for many years. Hanoi was symbolic, not strategic.




You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20
times more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

In Korea we did. Does that still mean that we "fought to a draw"?

Vietnam has nothing to do with Korea in this discussion. In Vietnam, our
goal was not reached. It's a Communist country like China, one which picks
and chooses its interactions with the West.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Lest we forget, the US did not win the two major fighting wars it was
involved in after WW II.

Hehehe. Gulf Wars I and II don't "count" in Harry's book (I suppose
because we "won" them).

Are you nuts? That's like bragging after you (meaning you personally)
kicked the crap out of an 8 yr old kid behind a dumpster. Remember the
news, on days 1 & 2 of both wars? "Little or no resistance", at least
not until we reached the cities, where every army on earth is at a
disadvantage.



It got out with a "draw" in Korea,

Because we figured it would simply take too long and too much money to
kill 1 billion Chinese.

You think someone didn't know this BEFORE we went into Korea???

Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

What would you have preferred happened, Doug? Let Pusan (and the
Americans holed up there) be overrun instead?

Harry says we fought to a draw. Not a chance. Truman's objective was to
recapture Seoul and reestablish an independent South Korea. In that
case, we clearly won.

Had MacArthur pushed into N. Korea as *he* wanted, we'd have probably
engaged the entire Soviet military (instead of just their fighter pilots)
*and* the Chinese. Inevitably, nukes would have been used.

If we "only fought to a draw", it was because of the looming threat of a
nuclear engagement with Russia. This is an example of how nukes tip the
balance of power. And this is precisely why a nuclear Iran is such a
scary thought.







In our "Quickie fast-food" world, the American public has grown
unaccustomed to waiting for anything. The longer a conflict drags on,
the quicker we lose patience and leave.

Depending on what date you choose, we were at war in Vietnam for between
8 and 15 years. How long do you think would've been long enough?

Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?
We'll never know "how long would've been enough" since we didn't fight
that war appropriately.

Air Force generals who know what they're talking about were telling Nixon
that the bombing was not producing results. Pretty unusual advice from
guys whose specialty is dropping bombs, and who had been doing exactly
that to Hanoi for many years. Hanoi was symbolic, not strategic.

And what about the ground troops not crossing 17th parallel?






You say things like "we got our buts handed to us in Vietnam", yet 1
million Vietcong died compared to our 50,000. If there was any
butt-kicking going on, it was directed against the side that lost 20
times more men.

The numbers are irrelevant. We did not achieve our stated goals.

In Korea we did. Does that still mean that we "fought to a draw"?

Vietnam has nothing to do with Korea in this discussion. In Vietnam, our
goal was not reached. It's a Communist country like China, one which picks
and chooses its interactions with the West.

Our goal wasn't reached due to a lack of political will...not a lack of
military capability.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

Air Force generals who know what they're talking about were telling Nixon
that the bombing was not producing results. Pretty unusual advice from
guys whose specialty is dropping bombs, and who had been doing exactly
that to Hanoi for many years. Hanoi was symbolic, not strategic.

The capiltol city of the opposition is symbolic. You capture it and you
demoralize the population.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

Air Force generals who know what they're talking about were telling Nixon
that the bombing was not producing results. Pretty unusual advice from
guys whose specialty is dropping bombs, and who had been doing exactly
that to Hanoi for many years. Hanoi was symbolic, not strategic.

The capiltol city of the opposition is symbolic. You capture it and you
demoralize the population.



Don't read much, do you, Bertie Girl? The North Vietnamese repeatedly stated
that they would never stop fighting. Period. Can you imagine our soldiers
hauling munitions for hundreds of miles, wearing flip-flops, using bicycles
to wheel the heavy stuff? Hanoi's symbolism meant nothing to the NV.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:05:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

Uh, you may want to consider reading a little about the Korean War. We
did push past the 38th parallel, way past. China didn't enter the war
until we were approaching the Yalu River. Oh, and MacArthur may have been
a great General, but he forgot, in this country, the President is the
Commander in Chief..


Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?

LOL, perhaps it is because the B-52 wasn't quite yet in our inventory.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:05:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Of course. And that's one of the reasons why Truman didn't allow
MacArthur to push past the 38th parallel, once he had driven the N.
Koreans back to it.

Uh, you may want to consider reading a little about the Korean War. We
did push past the 38th parallel, way past. China didn't enter the war
until we were approaching the Yalu River.

The Chinese were neck-deep in things from the beginning. China gave its
blessings for the start of the war to Kim, and then supplied the North
Koreans during the early months of the war. They were an active participant
from the very beginning. MacArthur wanted to hit supply depots in China, and
Truman refused. Yes, MacArthur pushed north to the Yalu, but it was against
Truman's orders. That's why I said that "Truman didn't allow MacArthur to
push past the 38th". Six months later, MacArthur was removed from command.



Oh, and MacArthur may have been
a great General, but he forgot, in this country, the President is the
Commander in Chief..

True.





Why didn't we send ground forces north of the 17th parallel? Why didn't
we bomb the hell out of the North with our B-52's?

LOL, perhaps it is because the B-52 wasn't quite yet in our inventory.


LOL? The reference to the 17th parallel had to do with my discussion with
Doug about Vietnam. Korea didn't have a "17th parallel". That should have
been your first clue.

And the B-52 was very much in our inventory during the Vietnam war.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 20:13:33 -0400, NOYB wrote:


The Chinese were neck-deep in things from the beginning. China gave its
blessings for the start of the war to Kim, and then supplied the North
Koreans during the early months of the war. They were an active
participant from the very beginning. MacArthur wanted to hit supply
depots in China, and Truman refused. Yes, MacArthur pushed north to the
Yalu, but it was against Truman's orders. That's why I said that
"Truman didn't allow MacArthur to push past the 38th". Six months
later, MacArthur was removed from command.

Not quite. Truman's orders to MacArthur:
"Your military objective is the
destruction of the North Korean armed forces. In attaining this objective
you are authorized to conduct military operations, including amphibious
and airborne landings or ground operations north of the 38th Parallel in
Korea, provided that at the time of such operations there has been no
entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist Forces, no
announcement of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations
militarily in North Korea. Under no circumstances, however, will your
forces cross the Manchurian or USSR borders of Korea" - Gen. Bradley,
Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sept.27, 1950.

Truman decided that it would be better to reach a stalemate than risk a
larger war with either China or the Soviet Union, or both. MacArthur
thought that he was already fighting the Chinese and Truman was tying his
hands. It's unclear what the world would look like today if MacArthur's
voice was listened to, but Truman's precedent of limited war is still with
us.

LOL? The reference to the 17th parallel had to do with my discussion
with Doug about Vietnam. Korea didn't have a "17th parallel". That
should have been your first clue.

Yup, my mistake. I did catch it, and tried to supersede the post, but .
.. .


And the B-52 was very much in our inventory during the Vietnam war.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 May 2005 20:13:33 -0400, NOYB wrote:


The Chinese were neck-deep in things from the beginning. China gave its
blessings for the start of the war to Kim, and then supplied the North
Koreans during the early months of the war. They were an active
participant from the very beginning. MacArthur wanted to hit supply
depots in China, and Truman refused. Yes, MacArthur pushed north to the
Yalu, but it was against Truman's orders. That's why I said that
"Truman didn't allow MacArthur to push past the 38th". Six months
later, MacArthur was removed from command.

Not quite. Truman's orders to MacArthur:
"Your military objective is the
destruction of the North Korean armed forces. In attaining this objective
you are authorized to conduct military operations, including amphibious
and airborne landings or ground operations north of the 38th Parallel in
Korea, provided that at the time of such operations there has been no
entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist Forces,
no announcement of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations
militarily in North Korea.

This is where MacArthur felt that things were up for interpretation. He
knew that US forces were facing Soviet fighter jets and pilots, and Soviet
"advised" N. Korean forces. He also knew that the Soviets and Chinese
were supplying the N. Koreans. He also knew that both the Chinese and
Soviets were ready to counter any move by Allied forces into North Korea.
By MacArthur's interpretation, we were already at war with the Soviets and
Chinese. Ergo, according to his orders he probably shouldn't have moved
north of the 38th Parallel, but did anyhow.

Ironically, we're facing a similar scenario in Iraq. We know that Iran and
Syria are supplying arms, men, and intelligence to the insurgency. Unlike
Truman, however, I don't believe Bush will blink when the time comes to go
after either country. Of course, neither country is a nuclear power, and
neither country poses quite the same threat that a nuclear armed USSR posed.




Under no circumstances, however, will your
forces cross the Manchurian or USSR borders of Korea" - Gen. Bradley,
Chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sept.27, 1950.

Well, at least MacArthur followed that order.


Truman decided that it would be better to reach a stalemate than risk a
larger war with either China or the Soviet Union, or both. MacArthur
thought that he was already fighting the Chinese and Truman was tying his
hands. It's unclear what the world would look like today if MacArthur's
voice was listened to, but Truman's precedent of limited war is still with
us.

Limited war is a farce. Neither side wins with limited war. I'm not a
proponent of war. But if and when it's inevitable and necessary, it should
not be "limited". We fought limited wars in Vietnam and Korea...which is
why one of those ended with our withdrawal, and the other ended in a
stalemate.

Korea and Vietnam were Cold War wars fought on other people's land. Sadly,
both countries were pawns in a US vs. Soviet dick-waving contest.