wrote in message
...
On 23 Aug 2003 10:23:35 -0700, (Brian) pausing to
cast envious glances at those who had mastered the skill of reading
without moving their lips, wrote:

Dan, as I recall, Nixon didn't open up Vietnam, and Clinton didn't
open up Somalia. I don't think Kissinger had much to do with either.
But he did figure out how to get OPEC organized, have an oil embargo,
then jack up the price of oil so they could buy US armaments.

No. In Vietnam it was the lily-livered liberals in the Johnson
administration who who more concerned with the views of the campus
pinko's, than with doing what needed to be done.

So you had a typical half-assed attempt at beating VC, instead of
turning the whole place into a scrapyard.
Old Nick

So Gen Macarthy had the right idea, Nuke the N. Koreans in 1951,
win the Korean war (sorry UN policing action). no domino effect.
Then there wouldn't of been a Vietnam, probably still be occupied by the French
?!

Steve Terry

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On 23 Aug 2003 10:23:35 -0700, (Brian) pausing to
cast envious glances at those who had mastered the skill of reading
without moving their lips, wrote:

Dan, as I recall, Nixon didn't open up Vietnam, and Clinton didn't
open up Somalia. I don't think Kissinger had much to do with either.
But he did figure out how to get OPEC organized, have an oil embargo,
then jack up the price of oil so they could buy US armaments.

No. In Vietnam it was the lily-livered liberals in the Johnson
administration who who more concerned with the views of the campus
pinko's, than with doing what needed to be done.

So you had a typical half-assed attempt at beating VC, instead of
turning the whole place into a scrapyard.
Old Nick

So Gen Macarthy had the right idea, Nuke the N. Koreans in 1951,
win the Korean war (sorry UN policing action). no domino effect.
Then there wouldn't of been a Vietnam, probably still be occupied by the
French
?!

Steve Terry



That is General MacArthur. No, I don't think nuking the Chinks would have
been a good idea...right then. Because we didn't have a tactical jobbers.
And the collateral damage would have been too intense. Later on a couple
well placed 5 kiloton jobbers would have cleaned out a few of em.

We never intended to WIN the Korean war. Out mandate from the UN was to
push the North and later the CHINKS back to their own playpens. We did
this.

As for No VN if the Korean War was won. I disagree also. You see the Frogs
were put back into 'Indo China' at the end of WW2. Because this country
needed their support in the UN against the flowering Communist block. Of
course that made little sense since the ww2 underground of Frogland was
Communist. Whatever.

So the Frogs went back into 'Indo China'. Attempted to re-establish their
little rubber empire and ****ed of Uncle Ho to the max. Uncle Ho asked the
US for help. We told him to **** up a rope. And rest is history as they
say.

The Frogs would have got their butts kicked out of there whether we helped
them or not. VN was not winnable no matter who or what did what to whom.

Dan/W4NTI

VN was not winnable no matter who or what did what to whom.

============================

The Vietnamese didn't think so.

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
VN was not winnable no matter who or what did what to whom.

============================

The Vietnamese didn't think so.



Your preaching to the choir on that one me boy.....I have a good couple
years there. And after I figured it out ( about 9 months into the mess) I
realized it was un-winnable. But I was just a lowly Sergeant.

Dan/W4NTI

In message k.net,
Dan/W4NTI writes
The Frogs would have got their butts kicked out of there whether we helped
them or not. VN was not winnable no matter who or what did what to whom.

Dan/W4NTI

That's the usual Republican excuse to explain wars they didn't win.
If it wasn't 'winnable' how come the Vietcong won?
--
Ged