|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 29, 2020 8:30:16 GMT -5
And my wife is on the ground there. Must be what did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Feb 29, 2020 9:25:49 GMT -5
And my wife is on the ground there. Must be what did it. What? Really? She's in Afghanistan? |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 29, 2020 9:26:41 GMT -5
Hope she made a great deal with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 29, 2020 9:47:04 GMT -5
And my wife is on the ground there. Must be what did it. What? Really? She's in Afghanistan? Yeah, been in Bogram for 3 weeks. Comes home a week from tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 29, 2020 9:48:03 GMT -5
Hope she made a great deal with them. I guarantee they couldn't say no. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 29, 2020 10:22:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 29, 2020 10:34:48 GMT -5
And my wife is on the ground there. Must be what did it. Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 29, 2020 11:07:46 GMT -5
Hey mister taliban, tally me bananas.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 29, 2020 11:11:02 GMT -5
And that's the conundrum of the modern age. We don't want to be there but we don't want the people who actually live there killing each other. In essence, we can't please everyone so we won't do anything. But given that sclerotic pessimism obviously won't get anything done, I'll choose to have hope until it fails. You've got to swing a hammer if you're going to build a house and there's always the risk you'll put your eye out. Oh, well. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Feb 29, 2020 14:13:22 GMT -5
Hey mister taliban, tally me bananas. Oof. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 29, 2020 14:28:13 GMT -5
Hey mister taliban, tally me bananas. Oof. Too heavy for ya? |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 29, 2020 14:31:34 GMT -5
And that's the conundrum of the modern age. We don't want to be there but we don't want the people who actually live there killing each other. In essence, we can't please everyone so we won't do anything. But given that sclerotic pessimism obviously won't get anything done, I'll choose to have hope until it fails. You've got to swing a hammer if you're going to build a house and there's always the risk you'll put your eye out. Oh, well. I don't have much hope for the Afghanie people in the short term. But it's time (overdue?) to get out and let them find their own way in the world. I just hope we try to help the people over there that helped us so much. Get them out, if need be. Other than that, it's time (overdue?) to close that book. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Feb 29, 2020 21:11:50 GMT -5
I'm hopeful, but my hope is tempered by having read that the Afghan government wasn't privy to this deal. Like others here, I remember the price the Vietnamese people paid for our fatigued exit there. I'd prefer not to see any repeats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Feb 29, 2020 21:15:34 GMT -5
We can’t fix Afghanistan. We have proved that. We went there to get Osama Bin Ladin. He’s dead. It’s time to leave.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 1, 2020 15:12:53 GMT -5
This is an opportunity for me to take some Vietnam backsteps...
While much of the South Vietnamese army didn't put up much of a fight in those final days, several units did fight bravely and for all they were worth, especially some of the Ranger units (units that no one wanted to mess with). And several pilots did take to the air and did all they could, but they just could't stop the NV's advancing armor complete with mobile anti-aircraft platforms, protection that must have been quite effective (because usually in these cases, it's jets 10, tanks 0.)
There was bravery and dedication to be found in the South Vietnamese army, and in my hurry to the bottom line of my post, I didn't acknowledge it. And I feel a little guilty.
But, the end speaks for itself, and the end was a surprisingly easy rout for the North. The bottom line is that whether it was the end, middle, or beginning, there was just too little support in the southern half of Vietnam for the various rulers ensconced in Saigon.
It is true that the political discord and confusion in Washington (the collapse of the Nixon presidency) emboldened the North to act more quickly and boldly against the South than it probably had originally planned to while it was signing the peace papers. But quick or not as quick, the NV plan was the plan. And the plan was one Vietnam, not two. And once this country gave up on fighting the supposed South's fight, that was what was going to happen.
And it is also true that the passage of the War Powers Act pretty much guaranteed that the U.S. would not reinsert its forces into Vietnam in response to the North's breaking of the peace deal (not that there would have been time to do so even it had wanted to as the South collapsed so quickly). But it wasn't just Democrats that voted to clip Nixon's war wings, 86 Republicans in the House and 25 in the Senate voted with the Democrats to over-ride Nixon's veto. Pulling the plug wasn't a Democratic deal, it was an 80% of the country deal.
And you can continue to argue whether or not the U.S. could have won the war, but you can't argue this: South Vietnam should have won the war, easily, given the massive American support it received, support that included ground troops and overwhelming and devastating air superiority. But it didn't.
South Vietnam didn't win a thing even though the "game" was played on their supposed home field, and the only answer that makes sense to me is that the various governments in Saigon didn't have a "home field" to play on; there wasn't a South Vietnam involved in the fight. Rather, there was a narrow band of economic and social interests largely centered around Saigon and few other "Frenchified" enclaves that were fighting under the banner only of a "South Vietnam", not an actual country unified by shared hopes, goals and purpose fighting to repel invaders.
History: There were two groups in Vietnam that sought to get rid of the French. One group wanted to toss the French and their French shoes. The other group wanted to toss the French, but keep the French shoes as they planned on stepping into those shoes themselves... and in several cases, already had.
(just who stepped into those nice plantations and wealth structures the French had carved out of indigenous lands and property? Not the people who originally had lived on those confiscated by the French lands. It is hard to deny the commies' argument; you can't "de-colonize" a land without breaking up the remnants of the colony; you can't just toss the French, you have to toss the French shoes and those who had stepped into them as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 1, 2020 15:13:16 GMT -5
Afghanistan? See above. At least in part. Nothing is ever the same, but parts sure do seem the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Mar 1, 2020 17:19:37 GMT -5
This is an opportunity for me to take some Vietnam backsteps... While much of the South Vietnamese army didn't put up much of a fight in those final days, several units did fight bravely and for all they were worth, especially some of the Ranger units (units that no one wanted to mess with). And several pilots did take to the air and did all they could, but they just could't stop the NV's advancing armor complete with mobile anti-aircraft platforms, protection that must have been quite effective (because usually in these cases, it's jets 10, tanks 0.) There was bravery and dedication to be found in the South Vietnamese army, and in my hurry to the bottom line of my post, I didn't acknowledge it. And I feel a little guilty. But, the end speaks for itself, and the end was a surprisingly easy rout for the North. The bottom line is that whether it was the end, middle, or beginning, there was just too little support in the southern half of Vietnam for the various rulers ensconced in Saigon. It is true that the political discord and confusion in Washington (the collapse of the Nixon presidency) emboldened the North to act more quickly and boldly against the South than it probably had originally planned to while it was signing the peace papers. But quick or not as quick, the NV plan was the plan. And the plan was one Vietnam, not two. And once this country gave up on fighting the supposed South's fight, that was what was going to happen. And it is also true that the passage of the War Powers Act pretty much guaranteed that the U.S. would not reinsert its forces into Vietnam in response to the North's breaking of the peace deal (not that there would have been time to do so even it had wanted to as the South collapsed so quickly). But it wasn't just Democrats that voted to clip Nixon's war wings, 86 Republicans in the House and 25 in the Senate voted with the Democrats to over-ride Nixon's veto. Pulling the plug wasn't a Democratic deal, it was an 80% of the country deal. And you can continue to argue whether or not the U.S. could have won the war, but you can't argue this: South Vietnam should have won the war, easily, given the massive American support it received, support that included ground troops and overwhelming and devastating air superiority. But it didn't. South Vietnam didn't win a thing even though the "game" was played on their supposed home field, and the only answer that makes sense to me is that the various governments in Saigon didn't have a "home field" to play on; there wasn't a South Vietnam involved in the fight. Rather, there was a narrow band of economic and social interests largely centered around Saigon and few other "Frenchified" enclaves that were fighting under the banner only of a "South Vietnam", not an actual country unified by shared hopes, goals and purpose fighting to repel invaders. History: There were two groups in Vietnam that sought to get rid of the French. One group wanted to toss the French and their French shoes. The other group wanted to toss the French, but keep the French shoes as they planned on stepping into those shoes themselves... and in several cases, already had. (just who stepped into those nice plantations and wealth structures the French had carved out of indigenous lands and property? Not the people who originally had lived on those confiscated by the French lands. It is hard to deny the commies' argument, you can't "de-colonize" a land without breaking up the colony's remnants; you can't just toss the French, you have to toss the French shoes and those who had stepped into them as well. I think you left out the part about the rules of engagement, under LBJ and McNamara where our guys weren't allowed to hit military targets in the North if there were civilians around. Our guys spent their bombing raids hitting Hanoi harbor. The North didn't have a navy. "Fighting" a war while trying not to hurt anyone is a fools errand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 21:41:56 GMT -5
And you can continue to argue whether or not the U.S. could have won the war, but you can't argue this: South Vietnam should have won the war, easily, given the massive American support it received, support that included ground troops and overwhelming and devastating air superiority. But it didn't. The population of South Vietnam in the 50s and 60s was mostly Buddhist. The government was Catholic, and put many policies in place that disadvantaged the Buddhists. Diem was corrupt and the people did not like him at all. Thieu was corrupt as well. While many officers were Catholic, a majority of the soldiers weren't. When the Army is not loyal to the government, it will fracture under pressure, regardless how well equipped it is. THAT is why South Vietnam lost when we pulled out. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 1, 2020 23:28:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 1, 2020 23:57:24 GMT -5
No doubt the Catholic Church was quite proud and pleased with all the converts the French made in and around Saigon. So proud and pleased it likely didn't care to spoil its self-congratulations by considering too thoughtfully why someone would abandon the religion of his fathers in order to adopt the religion of a foreign invader. It is unlikely the advantage sought by the convert was a spiritual one.
In a very great many instances, convert is synonymous with collaborator.
|
|
