From: knguyen@emr1.emr.ca (Kim Nguyen)
Subject: Re: North Vietnam
Keywords: Invasion
Organization: Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:38:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.164205.17916@b8.b8.ingr.com> larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.051846.2479@den.mmc.com>, whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
>> 
>> In article <Smith.21@biotec.arizona.edu>, Smith@biotec.arizona.edu (Roger A smith) writes:
>> |> Does anyone have an idea why the United States or South Vietnam did not 
>> |> invade North Vietnam?
>> 
>> I do have an "idea" on why the north half of Vietnam was not invaded.
>> I don't know the US government policy though.
>> With the partition of Vietnam, the population was divided too. The
>> folks who went south were happy to be in charge and away from those
>> who went north. Unification of Vietnam was not an issue, because we
>> were there to "protect our allie". If the world was to beleive the lie
>> of two Vietnams, then the sovereignty of both had to exist.
>> Besides, to those who ran the show and knew better, it would be folly to
>> invade and attempt to hold the entire country, when you didn't feel all
>> that secure about the half you had.
>> No doubt many more will provide ideas. Roger, great question.
>> What're your ideas?
>> 
>> Rich Whitmeyer            Views expressed are solely my own. 
>
>I believe that a lot of the problem had to do more with what happened in 
>Korea (the chinese swarming across the border), and the fear that it might
>happen again.  One book I read expressed this view, and said that he didn't
>think there was much danger of that happening.  He had studied the Korean
>war and the history of Korea as it raelated to China and felt that China
>feared invasion of their country because they had been invaded from there
>many times.  Since China hadn't been invaded from Vietnam and since they
>have a natural boundry (Mountain Range), they would not have interfered.
>I think that we should have attacked NVM, smash their army, and leave.  We
>did not need to try to hold the country, destroying their army would make
>them spend time, money, and resources to rebuild both the army and the
>countryside they fought in.
>
>Larry Billings
----------------------------------

- During the partition (1953). Lots of Nort Vietnamese (most of them are        christians who are against atheism) went south. Some South Vietnamese going
north are almost peasants and students who were told that after 2 or 3 years
of training they would go home to create pockets of revolution.

-In our Vietnamese history book, under Tran dynasty, we have a very smart and
decisive general called Ly-Thuong-Kiet who invaded two south provinces of
China. The reason is those two areas have been captured long time before by
former Chinese dynasties

-Alas, if Democrats (in accordance with those hippies taken LSD or marijuana)
had had your idea they would not block or cut aid from Mr. Nixon's budget, thoseAmerican soldiers would have more arms and more people, Hanoi could not hang
any longer and South Vietnamese soldiers could be lost so heavily (from 3 to
four generals having committed suicide for not to surrender as ordered by
the bastard general D.V.M)
budget for aid of Mr. Nixon
against atheism)