On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that, Harry.

In the end, Iraq is going to turn out badly for us, and not just because
thousands of Americans will have died needlessly over there, and
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will have died.

Not fair to blame Bush for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam.
I'm sure that's where your number came from.

It'll turn out badly for us because Iraq is going to become exactly what
the Muslims who live there want it to be, and that is NOT a
western-style democracy.

Does "the Muslims who live there" include those who voted?

And we'll be paying the price for Bush's stupidity and arrogance for
decades.

Yes. We should have elected Kerry!


--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda nuked
'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.



While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the Vietnamese
threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us why you
believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit to
being aligned with the NV.


The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold 3
presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

Communism was and is a plague on this earth and we needed to defeat the
Soviets to thwart their expansionism all over the world. Even the ChiCom's
know that Communism is a failure but, it is the only way that the
communist aristocracy can keep control of the flow of money and ideas.

Communism is a red herring. If it's not communism, it's Islamic
fundamentalists. It's always something, and the "something" usually means
"not like us". By the way, have you noticed that since we left, communism
has NOT spread to Indonesia, the Phillippines or Australia? Take Australia
off the list because applying the domino theory to that country was just
plain silly. What about the other two?

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda
nuked 'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.

Who was contemplating dropping a nuke on Vietnam?

While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the
Vietnamese threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us
why you believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit to
being aligned with the NV.

Because they had accomplished their objective getting the US to turn tail
and leave Vietnam. They did this by good use of the media. They sure as hell
couldn't win on an unrestrained battle field.

The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold 3
presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have
thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU
PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say
that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the
military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

So, when officers sit in classes, they are never asked (by teachers) "Look
at this battle situation. What would you do if this or that happened?" ?

Is that what you're saying, John? That never happens? Rarely happens?
Choose.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

Communism was and is a plague on this earth and we needed to defeat the
Soviets to thwart their expansionism all over the world. Even the
ChiCom's know that Communism is a failure but, it is the only way that
the communist aristocracy can keep control of the flow of money and
ideas.

Communism is a red herring. If it's not communism, it's Islamic
fundamentalists. It's always something, and the "something" usually means
"not like us". By the way, have you noticed that since we left, communism
has NOT spread to Indonesia, the Phillippines or Australia? Take Australia
off the list because applying the domino theory to that country was just
plain silly. What about the other two?

Doug, you need to expand your horizons and look at the issues from both
sides. The communists didn't like us because we weren't like them. The
Muslims don't like us because we aren't like them.

Communism has not been able to sustain itself due to its inability to
satisfy mans inherent greed. Without reward for ones work one settles into
just doing enough to get by. That is the legacy of communism, turning
productive members of society into sloths.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:17:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:38:53 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:18:03 -0400, "Harry.Krause"

wrote:

The North Vietnamese handed us our butts over there, and this remains
true despite the b.s. bravado of latter day revisionists.

We handed ourselves our butts. You had to be there to understand that,
Harry.

How many more thousands of American lives do you think we should have
thrown
away to protect something that cannot be protected? I'm mean YOU
PERSONALLY.
If you were the president, how would YOU decide when enough was enough?

Let's use an assumption here, to eliminate the usual excuse. Let's say
that
no matter how much force we threw at Vietnam, short of nuclear weapons
(because you are not stupid), the result was the same, for 2, 5, 7, 10
years. When would YOU, as president, end it?

Don't dodge the question, or pull a Dave Hall stunt and say "it's a
strawman". Questions like this are exactly how people learn strategy.


"...no matter how much force...result was the same..."

You may assume that, but I don't. The politicians should have let the
military
do their job.

Now, go back to bed.

So, when officers sit in classes, they are never asked (by teachers) "Look
at this battle situation. What would you do if this or that happened?" ?

Is that what you're saying, John? That never happens? Rarely happens?
Choose.


Some 'what ifs' are appropriate. Some are inane.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


The Vietnamese had been tossing visitors out of their country for 200+
years before we decided to stop by and help. They would never have
surrendered. And please - don't spew any bull**** about "we shoulda
nuked 'em".

Back off on the nuclear thing Doug, nobody is suggesting we nuke anybody
yet.

We're talking about Vietnam, not the present. NOYB should stop by any day
now and say that we could've won in Vietnam if we'd used nuclear weapons.

Who was contemplating dropping a nuke on Vietnam?

Don't you read? Nixon contemplated it repeatedly. Kissinger and other
advisors kept him caged. I'd provide the names of some books for you, but
I'm 100% sure you'd concoct some reason for not reading them.



While we're on this subject, tell us in your own words how the
Vietnamese threatened us before we got there. And, be sure to tell us
why you believe the domino theory was valid.

Uncle Ho wanted his country free from foreign occupation and influence.
Uncle Ho was a nationalist. But, he was a realist too and he figured it
would be better to team up with his own countrymen, the Communists, to
throw out the French and then the US using the help of their Soviet
benefactors. We should have backed Uncle Ho before the French got their
asses handed to them in Vietnam.

The Soviets began turning the screws on NV quite a while before we left.
They and the Chinese began to realize that there was no further benefit
to being aligned with the NV.

Because they had accomplished their objective getting the US to turn tail
and leave Vietnam. They did this by good use of the media. They sure as
hell couldn't win on an unrestrained battle field.

Your time line is mangled. 2-3 years before we left, the Soviets (first) and
the Chinese (second) were already telling our government that it was no
longer in their best interests to continue backing the NV. Remember that at
this time, China was still dangled by the Russians, so they often did what
they were told.

Don't read much, eh? You mentioned history in an earlier message. What are
some of your sources for the history of that period? They are incomplete.




The domino theory was a threat and we countered it wherever and whenever
we could.

As it applied in Vietnam, it was absurd. The suits who concocted it sold
3 presidents on the idea that the next stop for the communists would be
Australia. Fortunately, there were (and still are) smarter people in the
military who realized that the threat was strategically humorous.

So, the entire world is comprised of South East Asia. You never heard of
Central America, South America, the Carribiean and Africa?

Give me a break. First of all, our presence in Vietnam had nothing to do
with those places in a strategic sense. And second, all the places you
mentioned are culturally different from one another, and from Vietnam
(obviously). If you don't think the local culture has any effect on the
likelihood of a new political system being established, this conversation is
over.