"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.