I half agree. we half won Viet Nam. Like we half won Korea, and we will half win Iraq/knittedblanketstan. And that's the way all wars will be in the foreseeable future while there are politicians controlling combat operations. The Hague Convention (which we never formally signed), Geneva, NATO agreements etc need to be tossed out the window. There is only one rule in war; win.

Bobby

Between 1961 and 1975 an estimated 10% of the people living in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos had died. In the same period, 56,869 US troops were killed and another 153,329 were seriously wounded. The long-term psychological damage to the three million soldiers who fought in Vietnam and the resulting social problems are still being counted.

Because most Countries Military train for wars they fought in the past. Also, a bunch of Civilians, Politicians, Aristocracy, etc, get in the way and insist that the "next war/conflict" will be fought such and such way. (I refer to most of the Worlds history)

---

I think, therefore I am... part of a minority.

Sunil:
Read what I wrote, and posted. Not what you infer from the separate article.

I was posting, and commenting, on one point. Not the whole article.

Also, you misread, or misunderstand his post.

= Though Process or opinions

= Physical act

Conventional military response= Heavy weapons, open combat, direct enemy contact

Unconventional military response = Nuclear, Biological, Electronic, Propaganda, etc.

Guerrilla warfare= non-direct contact, small weapons, tactical weapons, small unit, hit and run, etc

---

I think, therefore I am... part of a minority.

Sunil:

I said I wasn't going to argue the point. Only that I thought it to be an interesting perspective to consider. And curious as to how modern events will compare.

You were arguing semantics. Trying to twist the point, discussing reference to a thought process for determining strategy and method, versus the term used for a specific action.

War is not War.
No War is EVER won. Everybody ALWAYS lose. It's a matter of who gained the most benefit versus loss.

Of course the french didn't help the US in Vietnam. If you know history, the UN (*1945 version?) and the French were the cause of the Vietnam War, with the US being the catalyst by creating the Viet Cong.
Or you can say it the other way around, with the US causing and the French and UN* being the catalyst.

* wasn't it the "League of nations?"

---

I think, therefore I am... part of a minority.

I'd say it's nothing more than a "perspective" and I'm sure there are plenty of them and probably not a single one of them is exactly the same. If you want a "true" perspective it would come from the persons that were there at the time.

Personally knowing some folks who were there in Vietnam I'd venture a guess that most of them don't really want to talk about it, certainly not "brag" about it. Most of the talk and bravado comes from persons who really don't have any....

Okay, I'll stop there

The bottom line is that if you think that any war has a "winner" you'd better go back and read the books again. Despite the notion that politicians have been "interfering" in the waging of these "wars" the fact is that the wars ARE political. There was never any inherent hatred between the men in the trenches other than what was planted there by political ideology and proliferate propaganda.

Tell me it ain't so

---

things are not as they seem.....nor are they otherwise

Pi:
There is no "true" perspective on anything.
As for the perspective, from people that were there, that would be one of the least accurate perspectives.
Theirs is completely biased.

Again, from the original post, I never advocated a perspective or opinion.
I only offered one for consideration.


There is no truth:
Truth is a matter of personal perspective.

There is no true perspective:
Perception is a creation of prior knowledge, and experience combined with current thought and conditions.

---

I think, therefore I am... part of a minority.

Wars will end when we stop sending children to fight them. The average age of the American Vietnam soldier was 18.

Let's make a rule, no one gets to fight in a war unless you are 40 years old and the person declaring the war has to lead. This one simple rule would end all wars. This is true.

Pi "The bottom line is that if you think that any war has a "winner" you'd better go back and read the books again. Despite the notion that politicians have been "interfering" in the waging of these "wars" the fact is that the wars ARE political. There was never any inherent hatred between the men in the trenches other than what was planted there by political ideology and proliferate propaganda.

Tell me it ain't so "

Ok, IT AIN'T SO!!!!

Yes, many times politics are the cause, and alot of the time politics are involved, but wars are fought for many reasons.

Why is it that east central Europe that was formerly under Soviet control almost immediately erupted into war when the Sov's left? And that was AFTER two generations of Soviet control, so it wasn't just about grudges someone had.

Why is it that Tutsis and Hutus began killing each other?

Why is it that Pol Pot killed millions, especially the educated ones in his country?

Why did Hitler kill millions of jews?

Why did Japan blindside us at Pearl Harbor?

Why is there constant fighting in the Congo?

No, Pi. It is FAR more complex than just saying "politics"! Greed, jealousy, hatred, ignorance, religion, and just plain evil are all involved and have precious little to do with "politics". Since the dawn of man we have killed each other for these and other reasons that have no political basis whatsoever. I'm not saying that politics isn't among the causes, but simply blaming politics is very much wrong. It is for this reason that we cannot solve the problem of war by simply trying to be peacenicks and playing nice with the world. I wish it were that simple, I really do.

Phil

Steve:
I'll split the difference with you...
37 and no kids under 15

---

I think, therefore I am... part of a minority.