Son of a gun! John, so good to hear from you.   
      
    ->>  ...   
      
   ->>  Actually, American history books do not describe Vietnam as a   
   ->>  victory for America. And we know the US lost the war. Not all   
   ->>  know it, but most of us do.   
      
    JF> We could have won that war if we 'wanted to'. Do you really   
      
    I agree. Only one major difference needed, we had to fight the   
    war for the benefit of the South Vietnamese, instead of for out   
    own purposes. If we weren't fighting it for them why were we   
    there in the first place?   
      
    JF> think we "lost" the war because the Viet Cong had  a more   
    JF> formidable military the the U.S.? We could have wiped them   
      
    The US military won every major engagement, and pretty much all   
    the lesser ones.   
      
    JF> out any time we pleased. Why didn't we? Do the math. It was   
    JF> not economically feasible for the U.S. to pursue the war   
      
    That is the cost of a 10 year war.   
      
    JF> any further. The Viet Nam war was waged simply to gauge   
    JF> Soviet response and to keep tabs on their military   
    JF> capabilities.   
      
    That I don't believe. The SU was not giving the NVs enough early   
    enough to mean anything. By the time they did we had so far   
    outpaced them they were primative by comparison.   
      
    JF> During that war 100's of newly developed   
    JF> weapons were beta tested. Esp as concerns the Air Force.   
      
    And that is what scared the hell out of the Soviets. Not only   
    did we put men and money into that war, developed tech and   
    training and experience that put us far ahead, but we did it all   
    the while keeping our home economy growing and even reduced the   
    debt to GDP ratio. All a measure of the superiority of our   
    system.   
      
    JF> Same with the (then) U.S.S.R. What a wonderful world...   
      
    The USSR had to spend a fortune to try to keep up with us.   
    Before the war the Soviets were spending a lot more of their GDP   
    on the military, and they doubled it through the war. They   
    didn't spend it on weapons for the Nort Vietnamese, but on their   
    own weapons as they realized how far ahead we were.   
      
    Our military spending went up much less than double during the   
    war, and after the war our spending went back down to near what   
    it was before. The Soviet spending stayed up there, and didn't   
    come down until the mid 80s. *THAT* is what broke the Soviet   
    Union. Our economy was so much better than theirs that they went   
    broke trying to do what we did, and not even coming close. It   
    took a couple decades, but it destroyed the Soviet Union.   
      
    And that is something to consider when thinking about the   
    Vietnam War.   
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... We secretly replaced the dilithium crystals with Folgers crystals.   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)