On 2020-04-27 11:34 a.m., Gary wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>> Thanks Americans! On to Vietnam!
>
> Sadly, the Vietnam war (their civil war)
> was actually a war between the USA and
> the Soviet Union. Or more distincly a
> war about communism vs the alternate.
> Many more countries participated in that too.
>
> Those Vietnamese kids (north and south)
> were only pawns in that chess game.

That was a damned shame, since it was their country.


> Our people had to fight a war with one hand tied
> behind there backs and that's why it dragged on
> so long with so many loss of lives on both sides.


You didn't have to fight it at all. The French had drawn the Viet Minh
into open battle in the hope of destroying them with superior fire
power. When they realized they had bitten off more than they could chew
they asked the US for help in the form of air support. The US refused.
They weren't interested in extending France's colonial hold on Indo
China, even though they had been an ally against the Japanese.

The US was involved with the talks to end the civil war and was a party
to the deal that arranged to divide the country, established a
demilitarized zone and to hold a plebiscite on reunification. When the
time came for the vote the corrupt regime in the south realized that the
North was going to win, so they refused to hold it, and the US backed them.

It was an odd situation. The country that likes to think of itself as
the great democracy backed a corrupt regime to deny the people that
democratic vote, and all the while claiming that they were fighting
against an enemy of democracy.



> IMO, if we declare war on some country, we should tell
> our military, "Go win this," and let them do what they
> were trained to do. Don't limit what they can do.
> End it quick.

That's the way I figure it. War is dirty, but if you are going to go to
war you have to go in with a plan to win and a plan to get out. The
idea of surgical strikes sounds good, but there is always collateral
damage, and that just ****es off the people who would have been
neutral, and they tend to support their home team.



> And you can even learn a lesson from the Nazi's and
> their early Blitzkriegs. Attack with full force all at
> once and overwhelm your enemy.

The more important lesson was the one imposed on Germany by the Allies
and their insistence on unconditional surrender.


> That's how our Special Forces are trained.

Not at all. The Special Forces are sent in to attack specific targets,
usually involving specialized equipment and tactics. They work as
advisors to assist local allies fight their common enemy. In the early
stages of the Afghanistan fiasco Army Rangers were sent in with bags
full of money and bargained with local war lords to buy their support.
They offered them money, and if they couldn't get a deal they would
resort to Plan B and bomb the *******s.