From: Tom Abbott <tabbott@intellex.com> Subject: Re: U.S. News & World Report insults Vietnam Vets Date: 2000/05/02 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Newsgroups: alt.politics On Tue, 2 May 2000 11:30:18 -0500, "Stephen Jaros" <sjaros@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >Tom Abbott <tabbott@intellex.com> wrote in message >news:mOwOOerwbuFYuuxWZ8KhLBgJT8dl@4ax.com... > >> In both cases, United States troops beat back the communist >> aggression, and turned the defense of the country over to the people >> living there, and then went back to the United States. > >No. In the Korean war, the US army did successfully create a stalemate >situation with the North and the Chinese. Which is exactly what took place in South Vietnam. > The battle was at a relative >standstill at the time of the armistice. Thus, both sides were able to >induce the other to quit fighting. As happened in South Vietnam. > In Vietnam, the communist forces were >advancing, The communist forces were on their last legs when the American forces got throught with them. Give an example of how the North Vietnamese were advancing after 1968, and before the peace accords were signed in 1973. > and that is why the US was unable to achieve an *armistice*. It >failed to force the North to quit fighting. > The North did in fact quit fighting. That's what the Paris Peace Accords accomplished in 1973, and that is why and when the United States pulled out its forces. It doesn't matter that they were only fooling, they *did* quit fighting (long enough to let U.S. troops leave the country). >> Similarly, United States troops had been gone from South Vietnam for >> two years when North Vietnam finally overran them, so how could the >> way American troops or their commanders fought the war be blamed for >> the loss? > >This doesn't make sense. The US *withdrew* its troops in Vietnam because >thousands of them were dying and there was no end of the war in sight. That's what happens when one fights a war of attrition. The end depends on how much punishment the other guy can take. By the time the U.S. forces left South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese army was throwing 14 and 15-year-old boys into the line, and my guess is they would have been down to toddlers in about 10 more years. Unfortunately for the North Vietnamese, their beloved Uncle Ho was willing to sacrafice ALL of them to his greater glory. > A withdrawal, in this context, was an admission of defeat. The United States forces withdrew after a peace agreement was signed in Paris which required BOTH sides, the U.S. AND North Vietnam to withdraw from South Vietnam. The U.S. lived up to its obligation, and the communists naturally broke theirs. Had the North Vietnamese adhered to the Paris Peace Accords, South Vietnam would be free today, and prosperous like South Korea. In the end though, the North Vietnamese violated the agreement and renewed attacks on South Vietnam, and the United States, although authorized by the Peace agreement to intervene if this happened, for political reasons chose not to intervene and threw South Vietnam to the wolves. No defeat of U.S. military forces was involved, just weak-spined politicians who had no honor, and felt no guilt at turning their backs on their moral obligations. > And even then, the >US continued to provide military aid to Vietnam. And that failed, too. It only failed after it was cut off in Aug 1974. Before that date the South Vietnamese military had fought the North Vietnamese to a standstill, and did so without any U.S. military help. Eight months after the military aid was cut off, South Vietnam was overrun by North Vietnam. TA