From: larry@b8.b8.ingr.com (Larry Billings)
Subject: Re: Did We Lose?
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:03:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.053341.10600@den.mmc.com>, whitmeye@den.mmc.com (Richard Whitmeyer) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep26.095620.27928@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:
> |> In article <1992Sep25.034214.11052@coe.montana.edu> sandy@cs.montana.edu (Colin "Sandy" Pittendrigh) writes:
> |> >In article <24SEP199201043297@summa.tamu.edu> rtb3270@summa.tamu.edu writes:
> |> Sounds to me like you haven't looked at what caused the US to have problems.
> |> It directly links in to why we had so easy a time with Iraq.  No, I am not
> |> talking about a military reason, anyone who bothers to check their facts
> |> realizes that the US did not lose any major battle in all of vietnam.
> 
> You are correct about that, but fact is we lost an unjust war.
>   
> |> What I am talking about is the %(##!&^ Press.
> 
> You have any idea of the value of a free %<##!&^ Press?

Yes, the %<##!&^ Press who molded American public's views to match what they
wanted.  If you only tell the bad side, and sensationalize the whole thing
more people will watch, the ratings will go up, and WE make more MONEY Press.

> 
> |> How many times in Vietnam did the press come in and accompany soldiers on |>_patrol_!
> 
> Not enough times. If I'm to support something as important as that I want and deserve all the information that can be provided.
> 

Actually, the press did accompany patrols in the early years, but as more 
of the people serving over there realized that regardless of what they did
the press was going to roast them, they didn't want the press along, and
lots of comanders refused to allow them to accompany the patrol, unless
they knew the guy personally (or through reading his colums) and knew that
he would report fairly.

> |> Look at how the Tet offensive was reported.  Tet, a major victory for the US, |> was reported as a crippling defeat by one certain reporter whose name I need
> |> not mention.
> 
> I call the loss of a provincial capital defeat. That we destroyed it to get it back is another. (Hue)
> 

There are setbacks in most or all major battles, the Japanese had several
setbacks in taking the Phillipenes, but does anyone say they lost the battle
to take them.

> |> We were dealing with a fanatical enemy.  In order to defeat such an enemy,
> |> you must break their fanaticism.  This was never done.
> 
> They were not fanatics. They were painfully aware of the power we possessed and realized that if they died trying to kick us out, it was a better death than the one to be had as a helpless victim. That is real commitment, not lip service. To the Vietnamese we must have seemed like the fanatics.
> 

To the vietnamese, We seemed like temporary warriors, go fight for a year and
go home.  I think what he is refering to is the way they fought, they had no
rules to follow except win and kill as many of the enemy as possible.  We
on the other hand almost needed to ask permission to fight back when attacked.

> 
> |> The US could not have occupied North Vietnam until we broke their spirit. This |> is what has been done in all the successful occupations of modern history.
> 
> What successful occupations? Poland? Germany? Afghanistan? India? Namimbia? France? Manchuria? Palestine? I know, Ohio! Now that one was successful.
> 
> |> 

We did not need to occupy North Vietnam, just destroy their army, and We
had many opportunities, but not by sitting idlely by on our side of the
"line in the jungle".

As for suscessful occupations, how about the North Veitnamese occuping 
South Vietnam.


> |> 					Mark
> 
> Face it, when one nation sends troops to force anything down the throats of another nation the defenders have the edge. They can't wish they could just go home. They are in it for the duration, and they are on favorable terrain. They can't quit. Each time you kill one, you make more.

If you are speaking of the Veit Cong you might be right, but the U.N. troops
didn't lose any major battles to the Veit Cong.  The battles were lost to 
the North Veitnam Army.  They were well trained, killing one causes loss of
a lot of training time.

> The press is not reason the US pulled out, we as a nation could no longer live a lie in the face of over whelming facts. TO OUR CREDIT, TOO!
> 
>   Lucky Rich Whitmeyer                DRAFT-LOTO # 269  1971    

But, the press created the atmosphere which cused the American public to 
be against the war.  I saw news footage where the South Vietnamese army
shot prisoners in the street, but never saw anything about the 12 year
old girl who came every night to dance for the U. S. troops, then after 
a week or two (when she had a big enough audience) pulled pins on two
gernades and killed 8 or 10 americans.


Larry Billings
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam