gift for vietnamese baby image
CULCHIE 4
its a contrversial question i know but im of the oppian that even if they had committed all forces to nvietnam they would have won that war
dose any 1 have a diffrent point of veiw
no patrtism plaese i just want some honest histricol oppians
Answer
The fact is that we were winning almost every engagement with the enemy... every major engagement.
The fact is,that we had the capability of turning North Vietnam into plowed ground for South Vietnamese farmers... no trees, no people, no cities, no villages... nothing but fertile soil.
The fact is that the diplomats and politicans didn't understand the enemy. When the enemy waved the white flag and asked for peace talks predicated upon a ceasefire, the diplomats aind politicians did a little victor dance and trooped naively to the peace talks. They would bargain in good faith for a few days... maybe a week. Then the enemy would stomp out of the talks claiming we'd violated the ceasefire. The fact is that as soon as the ceasefire went into effect, the enemy would resupply his troops, move out his wounded and dead, and move in fresh personnel, and either dig his defenses deeper, or prepare for a new offensive. The fact is that then these preparations were complete, he'd fire on us. When we returned fire, that's when they would stomp out of the peace talks.
The fact is the media waltzed the people. They didn't report the news. They reported what was in their best interest. They found out that bad news made people angry. Angry people are moved to take some action. For the media it meant that they would turn from page one to page eight to read the rest of the story. Between page one and page eight were seven pages of ads. Advertising is where the media make money. Don't think so? Why do you think the media gets more for a 30-second spot during half-time during the coverage of the Super Bowl than they get from all the teams in all the leagues for coverage for the rest of the year? And just for the heck of it, look along the sides of the pages on any "free" web site you visit.
The fact is that the media did everything in its power to stir up hate and discontent among the folks back home. They manufactured the news. The reported incorrectly. And the public bought it. I guess you could say the media were profiteers. The supported the enemy and made money from us by doing so. Under normal circumstances that would be considered treasonous, but the media think they're immune to the law because of "freedom of the press." It's not a new idea, The late RADM Daniel Gallery, USN (RET) alluded to the same idea... and that was during WW II. He suggested that there are not three branches of the federal government, but four, the executive, legislative, and judicial... and the press. Parenthetically, the first three are governed by Constitutional checks and balances. The press somehow thinks it's above such foolishness.
Back then people spoke of the "vocal minority" and the "silent majority." The fact is that everybody listened to the former because the latter were too busy working to support the former. Because they were taken care of they became lazy. Now that minority has become a majority... but they still want the others to support them while they recline on their "lazy-boys" and badmouth everything their benefactors do.
Those aren't political statements, although they might be so construed by those who want to argue some point. They're facts. I was in Vietnam. When the history professors were splashing around in their baby food I was up to my rear in brown water and rice paddies. Before they could read about history, I was making it. That's a fact. I saw it... and I lived it.
Any so-called "US defeat" was accidental to the enemy and probably very much a surprise to him, and a gift from the misled folks back home and their naive and gullible (if not incompetent or corrupt) elected representatives.
Sadly, I fear we might see the same thing with Iraq... and for the same reasons. And, with the media not turning its attention to Afghanistan, that too may follow the same pattern.
The fact is that we were winning almost every engagement with the enemy... every major engagement.
The fact is,that we had the capability of turning North Vietnam into plowed ground for South Vietnamese farmers... no trees, no people, no cities, no villages... nothing but fertile soil.
The fact is that the diplomats and politicans didn't understand the enemy. When the enemy waved the white flag and asked for peace talks predicated upon a ceasefire, the diplomats aind politicians did a little victor dance and trooped naively to the peace talks. They would bargain in good faith for a few days... maybe a week. Then the enemy would stomp out of the talks claiming we'd violated the ceasefire. The fact is that as soon as the ceasefire went into effect, the enemy would resupply his troops, move out his wounded and dead, and move in fresh personnel, and either dig his defenses deeper, or prepare for a new offensive. The fact is that then these preparations were complete, he'd fire on us. When we returned fire, that's when they would stomp out of the peace talks.
The fact is the media waltzed the people. They didn't report the news. They reported what was in their best interest. They found out that bad news made people angry. Angry people are moved to take some action. For the media it meant that they would turn from page one to page eight to read the rest of the story. Between page one and page eight were seven pages of ads. Advertising is where the media make money. Don't think so? Why do you think the media gets more for a 30-second spot during half-time during the coverage of the Super Bowl than they get from all the teams in all the leagues for coverage for the rest of the year? And just for the heck of it, look along the sides of the pages on any "free" web site you visit.
The fact is that the media did everything in its power to stir up hate and discontent among the folks back home. They manufactured the news. The reported incorrectly. And the public bought it. I guess you could say the media were profiteers. The supported the enemy and made money from us by doing so. Under normal circumstances that would be considered treasonous, but the media think they're immune to the law because of "freedom of the press." It's not a new idea, The late RADM Daniel Gallery, USN (RET) alluded to the same idea... and that was during WW II. He suggested that there are not three branches of the federal government, but four, the executive, legislative, and judicial... and the press. Parenthetically, the first three are governed by Constitutional checks and balances. The press somehow thinks it's above such foolishness.
Back then people spoke of the "vocal minority" and the "silent majority." The fact is that everybody listened to the former because the latter were too busy working to support the former. Because they were taken care of they became lazy. Now that minority has become a majority... but they still want the others to support them while they recline on their "lazy-boys" and badmouth everything their benefactors do.
Those aren't political statements, although they might be so construed by those who want to argue some point. They're facts. I was in Vietnam. When the history professors were splashing around in their baby food I was up to my rear in brown water and rice paddies. Before they could read about history, I was making it. That's a fact. I saw it... and I lived it.
Any so-called "US defeat" was accidental to the enemy and probably very much a surprise to him, and a gift from the misled folks back home and their naive and gullible (if not incompetent or corrupt) elected representatives.
Sadly, I fear we might see the same thing with Iraq... and for the same reasons. And, with the media not turning its attention to Afghanistan, that too may follow the same pattern.
y did everyone hate the war in Vietnam?
Eat. Sleep
Answer
the vietnam war was officially considered a "policing action" much like what we are facing in iraq. this was the first war where guerrilla tactics were used instead of it being mostly a straight fight. most of the soldiers were draftees with vey little want to be there. they were willing to give up thier lives for a cause that most of them didn't even believe in and when they returnd home these american heroes wre spit on, yelled at and many of them still suffer from ptsd today. war is hell and NO war should be liked by anyone even if they are sometimes nescassary. the simple fact is that we had no business being in the region at the time. the french had been fighting the north vietnamese for 10 years before we even came into the picture and they couldn't do any better than we did! quite simply america had never fought a war like this. in all the others it was " there is the enemy kill them". in vietnam you didn't know who the enemy was until it was too late! kids putting bombs in buildings, poisoning drinks and giving them to the troops as
'gifts" it was a bad situation no matter what side you were on.you couldn't turn your back on anyone even the ones that were supposed to be your ally.
war is hell no matter if you are winning or losing. if it wasn't there wouldn't be anything to stop us from waging it. people die on both sides. but to answer your question people hated that particular war because we had no business fighting a battle that had no ramifications on our freedoms. and many people believed that soldiers just went crazy over there and were killing innocent civillians. one of the most popular monachers for a soldier in vietnam was "baby killer". this wasn't true of course but it didn't stop the hippie movement from attacking the returning soldiers with this hate speech. unfortuanately many innocent people WERE killed in that war. they were also killed in the revolutionary war, the civil war, ww1, ww2, korea, desert storm, bosnia, etc. war is war and there will always be collateral damage thats unavoidable. in short all war is bad and should be the last resort of any nation unless they are undeniably attacked and must retaliate in defense of said nation. in vietnam we were never attacked. our government stuck our noses where it didn't belong and our troops were the ones that paid for it with thier lives.
the vietnam war was officially considered a "policing action" much like what we are facing in iraq. this was the first war where guerrilla tactics were used instead of it being mostly a straight fight. most of the soldiers were draftees with vey little want to be there. they were willing to give up thier lives for a cause that most of them didn't even believe in and when they returnd home these american heroes wre spit on, yelled at and many of them still suffer from ptsd today. war is hell and NO war should be liked by anyone even if they are sometimes nescassary. the simple fact is that we had no business being in the region at the time. the french had been fighting the north vietnamese for 10 years before we even came into the picture and they couldn't do any better than we did! quite simply america had never fought a war like this. in all the others it was " there is the enemy kill them". in vietnam you didn't know who the enemy was until it was too late! kids putting bombs in buildings, poisoning drinks and giving them to the troops as
'gifts" it was a bad situation no matter what side you were on.you couldn't turn your back on anyone even the ones that were supposed to be your ally.
war is hell no matter if you are winning or losing. if it wasn't there wouldn't be anything to stop us from waging it. people die on both sides. but to answer your question people hated that particular war because we had no business fighting a battle that had no ramifications on our freedoms. and many people believed that soldiers just went crazy over there and were killing innocent civillians. one of the most popular monachers for a soldier in vietnam was "baby killer". this wasn't true of course but it didn't stop the hippie movement from attacking the returning soldiers with this hate speech. unfortuanately many innocent people WERE killed in that war. they were also killed in the revolutionary war, the civil war, ww1, ww2, korea, desert storm, bosnia, etc. war is war and there will always be collateral damage thats unavoidable. in short all war is bad and should be the last resort of any nation unless they are undeniably attacked and must retaliate in defense of said nation. in vietnam we were never attacked. our government stuck our noses where it didn't belong and our troops were the ones that paid for it with thier lives.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment