Topic: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

Why Vietnam was lost
By Andrew Sumereau


Revisionism is a booming industry for historians. Columbus was once a hero, discoverer of a new world, carrying the glory of Christendom to savage and pagan lands. Today he is a villain, despoiler of paradise, carrying disease and slavery to utopian societies. This makes the new chroniclers happy; it settles their doubts and soothes their consciences. It serves to fill their current agendas with a righteous glow. And it sells books. But it isn't true.
The Vietnam conflict was a major enterprise of the cold war. It was a noble undertaking by the United States. Over a ten

Buddugoliaeth neu Marwolaeth

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

bomb em back to...damn...a time before goats

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

Ah, the Era of the Capra aegagrus.

☑ Saddam Hussein ☑ Osama Bin Laden ☐ Justin Bieber

4 (edited by tavius 13-Nov-2010 08:24:40)

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

Uhh the Americans bombed N Vietnamese civilian centres to complete rubble, deployed agent orange and napalm but apparently they were too soft? Not to mention China saw the N Vietnamese as a proxy of the SU (who they disliked at the time) which was why China was willing to start a war after the Americans left to discourage a Vietnamese push into SE Asia. So Nixon actually was playing it smart strategically.

The problem with Afghanistan is Pakistan so unless the U.S knows how to handle them...

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

Um we did NOT bomb NV cities to rubble, the wrecked cities were on the South side.  I''ve been told that if LBJ had run the Linebacker and Linebacker II bombings of Haiphong harbor in 1966 rather than 1972, before Ho Chi Minh got the roads working, the North would have had to ask for armistice becasue the bulk of their supplies came by sea at that time.

When they say we were too easy with our bombing they are comparing it to the German and Japanese air wars of 1945.  There are United States Strategic Bombing Surveys online, I found a site with summaries up but it gives titles you can google to read in depth:

"Total civilian casualties in Japan, as a result of 9 months of air attack, including those from the atomic bombs, were approximately 806,000. Of these, approximately 330,000 were fatalities. These casualties probably exceeded Japan's combat casualties which the Japanese estimate as having totaled approximately 780,000 during the entire war. The principal cause of civilian death or injury was burns. Of the total casualties approximately 185,000 were suffered in the initial attack on Tokyo of 9 March 1945. Casualties in many extremely destructive attacks were comparatively low. Yokahoma, a city of 900,000 population, was 47 percent destroyed in a single attack lasting less than an hour. The fatalities suffered were less than 5,000.
The Japanese had constructed extensive firebreaks by tearing down all houses along selected streets or natural barriers. The total number of buildings torn down in this program, as reported by the Japanese, amounted to 615,000 as against 2,510,000 destroyed by the air attacks themselves. These firebreaks did not effectively stop the spread of fire, as incendiaries were dropped on both sides of the breaks. They did, however, constitute avenues of escape for the civilian population. "
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/PTO-Summary.html#thamotjc

and Yokohama got off lightly, some Japanese cities had fires that consumed 95% of the city area.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

6 (edited by tavius 14-Nov-2010 06:47:54)

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

Obviously I don't know enough about the Vietnam War. But look things didn't turn out so bad, considering Vietnam is today a peaceful, contributing member of the global economy and is making good progress social and economy-wise. Maybe the lesson is that not all wars have to be fought and won?

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

Contrast it with the Koreas. 

After the fall of Saigon there was a period of brutal repression that sent 10% of the Vietnamese population overseas as refugees.  It was reduced to near famine until after the end of the Cold War.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Why America lost 'Nam & will lost A-stan

@tavius:
as yell pointed out, it really turned bad after the troops left. I'm not saying the war on itself did any good to the Vietnamese, but what they faced after wards was even worse. More people died after war but the gov kept it quit.