06-04-2004 05:49									#121
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: am I wrong for thinking that? give me a link to a source that says otherwise.

Yes, you are wrong. Can you tell me when this democratic election took place? The closest thing to a national election in South Vietnam was a referendum on basically whether to keep the monarchy or be a republic (whether to be ruled by Bao Dai or Diem), and it's questionable whether that was a free election. Afterwards, Diem adamantly refused any free national elections, attacked any existing local election apparatus, tossed political dissidents into concentration camps, etc. It's all well-documented in the Pentagon Papers:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intre...agon/pent11.htm

	06-04-2004 05:54									#122
	Suffering from ads?

ty Ramo

	06-04-2004 08:33									#123
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun You have a ****ed up perception of history.

Perhaps

quote: United States was allied with South Vietnam -- our goal was to prevent communist takeover of South Vietnam. When we withdrew from Vietnam altogether, the communists of North Vietnam, with their South Vietnamese supporters, took over South Vietnam. Thus, our goal failed and thus . . . . . . we were defeated.

American troops left Vietnam as of November 30, 1972. The rest were so-called advisors which also left on March 29, 1973.

South Vietnam finally fell April 30, 1975.

The 'goal' was simply dropped.

My agruement here is that US wasn't defeated. There was no Dien Bien Phu for Americans. There was no clear military superiority over the Americans.

Let's suppose someone confronts me somewhere and we fight. Then I realized this' a complete waste of my time and energy and it's going nowhere. I just stop and leave. I wouldn't consider myself defeated. If I was beat up into a bloody pulp, my wallet looted - now that's some serious arse-kicking for me.

quote: I know that we're suppose to patriotically correct to presume that our country is too good to ever lose any war or conflict, but that does not fit with scholarly history.

Pfft, a true patriot wouldn't do this.

quote: If US didn't loose in Vietnam, Germany didn't loose WW1.

Kasier abdicted and fled to Holland. Germany was basically forced to surrender unconditionally and sign the Armistice which was very unfavorable to them. They had no choice in the matter. They even had to sign a clause taking the responsiblity for the war. Here's some of terms they had to agree to... http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/armistice.html

Certainly didn't look like a withdrawal or a victory to me.

Either did this: Treaty of Versailles. You're welcome to check this out at http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/versailles.htm

	06-04-2004 08:53									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by DataAeolus American troops left Vietnam as of November 30, 1972. The rest were so-called advisors which also left on March 29, 1973. South Vietnam finally fell April 30, 1975. The 'goal' was simply dropped. My agruement here is that US wasn't defeated. There was no Dien Bien Phu for Americans. There was no clear military superiority over the Americans. Let's suppose someone confronts me somewhere and we fight. Then I realized this' a complete waste of my time and energy and it's going nowhere. I just stop and leave. I wouldn't consider myself defeated. If I was beat up into a bloody pulp, my wallet looted - now that's some serious arse-kicking for me. [/url]

MAN -- give me whatever your smoking or snorting!

First of all the North Vienamese had a superior military strategy along with tactics. They employed an effective combination of guerrilla warfare with conventional warfare. This dualism allowed North Vietnamese to attack American and South Vietnamese forces with guerrilla forces when the commies felt they were at a great disadvantage in conventional warfare terms. THEN, when they correctly or incorrectly believed they were strong enough, they would employ their more conventional forces.

This is what a number of American military leaders failed to grasp at that time, but we still stuck to nearly exclusive conventional strategy of overkill in terms of civilian casualties and material destruction that failed to even defeat the enemy.


As for your thug fight analogy.

When you retreat with a minimum loss or a greater loss, it doesn't matter -- you lost by opting out of the fight that someone else initiated -- you backed away and gave them ground.

	06-04-2004 09:10									#125
	Suffering from ads?

If you followed this preposterous neocon logic about staying the US would still be in Vietnam.

It seems me a clear admission of policy failure.

If a policy fails, you change it.

	06-04-2004 09:29									#126
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MrFun First of all the North Vienamese had a superior military strategy along with tactics.

The guerrilla forces or the Army? Because you'll get two different answers based on your response.

	06-04-2004 09:46									#127
	Tired of ads?

DD -- the North Vietnamese had a superior strategy in that they effectively utilized a combination of guerrilla and conventional forces.

It seemed that the guerrilla forces was North Vietnam's strongest asset, considering that North Vietnam utilized political propaganda in whatever villages the guerrillas operated in.

	06-04-2004 09:50									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The guerrillas were destroyed as an effective fighting force after the 68 Tet Offensive.

	06-04-2004 09:52									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

But even with the Tet Offensive, and the fact that the North Vietnamese suffered huge losses, they still won politically.

But yes, in the pure military sense, Tet was a disaster for North Vietnam, but in spite of that, they achieved their political goal.

	06-04-2004 09:53									#130
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The guerrillas were destroyed as an effective fighting force after the 68 Tet Offensive.

So they replaced the vc with nva regulars. Your point?

	06-04-2004 09:56									#131
	Inflate your Upload Space

That they seemed to be better led. I can't recal any military disasters on that scale coming from their leadership.

	06-04-2004 10:00									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

hmmm, the tet offensive was ordered by Hanoi - it was probably the most successful operation of the war.

Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 06-04-2004 at 10:06

	06-04-2004 10:03									#133
	Suffering from ads?

The English troll in the other thread is more interesting.

	06-04-2004 10:18									#134
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The English troll in the other thread is more interesting.

It's true. The tet offensive turned American public against the war. It was the beginning of the end.

	06-04-2004 10:39									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse It's true. The tet offensive turned American public against the war. It was the beginning of the end.

Yeah, but at what cost?

The VC was effectively destroyed, and the (relatively) small NVA was forced to confront a much better army. Then, that army got scared and ran away.

	06-04-2004 11:08									#136
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MrFun MAN -- give me whatever your smoking or snorting!

Come on over, I'll share

	06-04-2004 11:08									#137
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

They won the war didn't they? That's all that mattered. You could win every battle and still lose the war.

	06-04-2004 11:12									#138
	Remove this text

Aye, that they did, UR.

	06-04-2004 11:12									#139
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger They won the war didn't they? That's all that mattered. You could win every battle and still lose the war.

Well, they lost every battle, and then when they were trying to just survive, the US retreated. Yes, the US lost. But, the US could have just as easily won.

	06-04-2004 12:23									#140
	Re: The US must stay the course in Iraq Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat We have to win because if we don't, we send a signal to all would-be enemies that the US is weak and can be kicked around at ease.

The US has already send multiple signals :
- that their intelligence is below any expectation
- that the Pentagon is able to plan a military offensive, not a war
- that the service in charge of implementing the democracy ignored that it would need an irakian admin, and let destroy the ministries
- that the White House is accelerating the transfer of power (to be done by june 30), after claiming for months that it could not be achieved in 2004.

If I were a would-be enemy, I would understand that the US has not a clear idea of how democracy can be establish in Irak, or that it does not really intend to do it. In both cases I would conclude that harasment should continue.

The will to win whatever the cost alone gives the advantage to the would-be enemy because his costs are much, much, lower.

	06-04-2004 14:15									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The June 30th date was set last summer. I really don't follow your logic about how recent, post last summer, violence has lead to the hand over date being moved up.

	06-04-2004 14:20									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

BTW the Pentigon knew full well what it needed to win the war and to effectively occupy the country. They wrote up a plan which called for 400,000-500,000 soldiers just so they could saturate the country with soldiers in order to provide security. The plan also called for the Iraq Army not to be disolved but for the senior leadership to be removed and then to have the Army help provide law and order.

Rumsfield vetoed the plan claiming it "wasn't imaginative enough" but several insiders have claimed Rumsfield and Bush didn't like the financial and political costs of having a half million man occupation force.

	06-04-2004 14:42									#143
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"The Americans will always do the right thing... After they've exhausted all the alternatives."
- Winston Churchill

	06-04-2004 14:55									#144
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The June 30th date was set last summer. I really don't follow your logic about how recent, post last summer, violence has lead to the hand over date being moved up.

I do not say that; I only observe that, from an enemy point of view, the hand over date has been moved up, compared to the initial plans or declarations.

	06-04-2004 15:00									#145
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin BTW the Pentigon knew full well what it needed to win the war and to effectively occupy the country. They wrote up a plan which called for 400,000-500,000 soldiers just so they could saturate the country with soldiers in order to provide security. The plan also called for the Iraq Army not to be disolved but for the senior leadership to be removed and then to have the Army help provide law and order. Rumsfield vetoed the plan claiming it "wasn't imaginative enough" but several insiders have claimed Rumsfield and Bush didn't like the financial and political costs of having a half million man occupation force.

Again, from an enemy point of view, Rumsfeld/Pentagon have launched a WAR with 150000 soldiers which appear to be not enough to settle the war. This is obviously a signal, particularly considering the costs you mentionned.

	06-04-2004 19:08									#146
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DataAeolus Aye, that they did, UR.

** plants victory flag on Data's head **

	06-04-2004 19:29									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark hello!!! The thread was started by a poster calling himself "the diplomat" not by George W Bush (who AFAIK doesnt post to Poly) The Diplomat made no reference whatsoever to the date of the turnover. Your posts have little to do with the post of the person who started the thread. Did you see the thread title and just respond to that, without actually reading the first post??? OK, it happens to all of us

I always read the OP. Maybe you have not figured out the diplomat basically holds a 100% pro-Bush agenda, and when he says "stay the course"! He means, Bush is doing it right, we should support what he is doing! Well, I don't. I think the course he has set, doing it on the cheap, on the fly, and running iraq with a continual eye to his re-election, politicizing the occupation, is wrong. Hence, we should NOT stay the course, but change courses.

	06-04-2004 20:19									#148
	Got spare money?

Well the voice which it would be good to hear would be the voice of those Iraqis who are trying to get on with leading their lives.

Not the people who took to looting as soon as the invasion destroyed law and order; not the people intent on killing so as to earn the favour of their God; not the people who, under the previous regime, made life (and death) miserable for lots of their fellows; not the people excited by the present power vacuum and manoevring to increase their own influence; just the rest of the folk who did not ask to be invaded, do not ask to be looted, and would like some peace and stability so they can get on with earning a living, bringing up their families and maybe get to see a movie on a Saturday afternoon every now and then.

A recent poll suggested that many such folk would be happy for the US/UK forces to stay for a year because they recognise that their presence increases the chance of law and order being better maintained. But they don't want foreignors having anything to do with their government.

Quite how the two things can be reconciled I don't know. But there certainly have been peacekeeping forces that kept out of local politics. So maybe something could be done.

Somehow, however, I do not have the impression that the US/UK political leaders are going to listen to that voice.

Nor, for that matter, would it, if heard, seemingly strike much of a chord with Poly posters. The US/UK politicians (and, perhaps, their electorates) are concerned with the "war on terrorism" not with the conditions in which Iraqis lead their lives. The fact that events happen to be unfolding in Iraq is just coincidental. It could equally well be Afghanistan or Ireland or any other place where Mr Bush or Mr Blair persuaded themselves terrorists lurk.

Which does have quite a strong parallel with Vietnam. The voice of the Vitnamese people was likewise never heard about that conflict. The US had its Commie bugbear to battle and its domino theory to worry about. Just as it now has its obsession with terrorism.

Come to think of it, the peace protesters have their own agenda too -,because they are all busy demanding immediate withdrawal of the troops. None of them thinks it necessary to ask the Iraqi people what they want either.

	06-04-2004 20:26									#149
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse hmmm, the tet offensive was ordered by Hanoi - it was probably the most successful operation of the war.

But not militarily, politically.

	06-04-2004 20:33									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

East Side Trader:

I think a UN mandate for the occupation ofrces after soverignty is handed over would be best to work out the problem of balancing the need for foreign forces to keep security and as little direct interference from any specific foreign government in the internal dealings of Iraq and it's government.