Hello Bob,   
      
   BK>Son of a gun! John, so good to hear from you.   
      
   I hope he sticks around for a while longer than last time.   
   Even if he does get the (occasional) better argument ...   
      
    ->>>  ...   
      
    ->>>  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   
      
   BK>I agree. Only one major difference needed, we had to fight the   
   BK>war for the benefit of the South Vietnamese, instead of for out   
   BK>own purposes. If we weren't fighting it for them why were we   
   BK>there in the first place?   
      
   "Peace with honor" was the only way we could leave Vietnam,   
   according to Richard Nixon.  That is why the war did not end   
   in 1969 when LBJ left office.  The deal LBJ had made with his   
   Vietnamese counterparts was all in place, the only thing   
   needed being Richard Nixon to sign on as President of the   
   United States.  But Nixon refused to go along, continuing the   
   war for five more years, including expanding military operations   
   to include illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia.  The agreement   
   that was finally agreed upon (in Paris) was essentially the   
   very same agreement made in 1969 by LBJ.   
      
   In summation, here is what happened -   
      
   Richard Nixon lost the war.  Richard Nixon then resigned from   
   office in disgrace.  Gerald Ford became our first appointed President,   
   announcing to the world, "Our long national nightmare has ended."   
   The world applauded.  Then Ford went and pardoned Nixon.  What an   
   idiot.   
      
    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   
      
   BK>The US military won every major engagement, and pretty much all   
   BK>the lesser ones.   
      
   Richard Nixon lost the war.  Not the US military.   
      
    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   
      
   BK>That is the cost of a 10 year war.   
      
   It would have been a lot shorter, with more lives saved, had   
   Nixon agreed to end the war in 1969.   
      
    JF>> any further. The Viet Nam war was waged simply to gauge   
    JF>> Soviet response and to keep tabs on their military   
    JF>> capabilities.   
      
   BK>That I don't believe. The SU was not giving the NVs enough early   
   BK>enough to mean anything. By the time they did we had so far   
   BK>outpaced them they were primative by comparison.   
      
   We had air superiority throughout the war.  We could have bombed   
   all their cities to smithereens had we chosen to do so.  We could   
   have deforested the countryside, had we chosen to do so.  We could   
   have made the whole place totally unliveable, had we chosen to do   
   so.  But none of that would have won the hearts and minds of the   
   Vietnamese people.  And that is what we needed to do, if ever we   
   wanted to do business with them.   
      
    JF>> During that war 100's of newly developed   
    JF>> weapons were beta tested. Esp as concerns the Air Force.   
      
   BK>And that is what scared the hell out of the Soviets. Not only   
   BK>did we put men and money into that war, developed tech and   
   BK>training and experience that put us far ahead, but we did it all   
   BK>the while keeping our home economy growing and even reduced the   
   BK>debt to GDP ratio. All a measure of the superiority of our   
   BK>system.   
      
   During that time period in history, the US had its client states,   
   the former USSR had their client states.  Each side tried to hold   
   on to its own, while stealing some from the other side.  Neither   
   the US nor the former USSR wanted a nuclear war, as both would have   
   been destroyed (along with their client states and the rest of the   
   world).  So the US and the former USSR did the next best thing.   
   Each side tried to outspend the other building weapons and weapons   
   systems, etc.   
      
    JF>> Same with the (then) U.S.S.R. What a wonderful world...   
      
    BK> The USSR had to spend a fortune to try to keep up with us.   
    BK> Before the war the Soviets were spending a lot more of their GDP   
    BK> on the military, and they doubled it through the war. They   
    BK> didn't spend it on weapons for the Nort Vietnamese, but on their   
    BK> own weapons as they realized how far ahead we were.   
      
    BK> Our military spending went up much less than double during the   
    BK> war, and after the war our spending went back down to near what   
    BK> it was before. The Soviet spending stayed up there, and didn't   
    BK> come down until the mid 80s. *THAT* is what broke the Soviet   
    BK> Union. Our economy was so much better than theirs that they went   
    BK> broke trying to do what we did, and not even coming close. It   
    BK> took a couple decades, but it destroyed the Soviet Union.   
      
    BK> And that is something to consider when thinking about the   
    BK> Vietnam War.   
      
   Richard Nixon lost the war in Vietnam.  But the Cold War continued.   
   Fortunately for us, the former USSR blinked first, having bankrupted   
   itself into oblivion before we did.   
      
   You do realize our economy tanked, never having recovered from   
   the events of 9-11?  I mean, where are those WTC Towers?  There   
   is even talk of demolishing the WTC in New Orleans, as nobody   
   had or has the money to buy it ...   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)