Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, legendary vietnamese freedom fighter, turns 100

[Trajan]

what interesting is a number of majors on up who had been that rank and above during the conflict and retired from high positions have written memoirs that have drawn little interest.

Mark Moyer's Triumph Forsaken being one of the few how have extensively used those memoirs etc. to explain the early years especially. One of the biggest take aways was, and remains our biggest mistake; allowing Diem to be over thrown and assassinated.

Giap knew the enemy he was fighting having cut his teeth vs. the Japanese and french and did what was necessary, Ho's apocryphal canard- "you will ten of ours and we will kill one of yours and it is you who will tire of it", proved prophetic, tragically so.

Even the most cursory study of Vietnamese history would have shown that they were and are fiercely independent and have been fighting colonalization for centuries.

Really sad chapter in this country's history.

and that cursory study would also show that they, that is both sides for 2000 years invited foreigners to help them fight each other too, then try and throw them out afterward.....

 

[Sallow]

what interesting is a number of majors on up who had been that rank and above during the conflict and retired from high positions have written memoirs that have drawn little interest.

Mark Moyer's Triumph Forsaken being one of the few how have extensively used those memoirs etc. to explain the early years especially. One of the biggest take aways was, and remains our biggest mistake; allowing Diem to be over thrown and assassinated.

Giap knew the enemy he was fighting having cut his teeth vs. the Japanese and french and did what was necessary, Ho's apocryphal canard- "you will ten of ours and we will kill one of yours and it is you who will tire of it", proved prophetic, tragically so.

Even the most cursory study of Vietnamese history would have shown that they were and are fiercely independent and have been fighting colonalization for centuries.

Really sad chapter in this country's history.

and that cursory study would also show that they, that is both sides for 2000 years invited foreigners to help them fight each other too, then try and throw them out afterward.....

That's kinda not so unusual for the region. Korea was the exact same way..up until very recently.

 

[Trajan]

By the time the series of battles known as the Tet offensive ended in 1968 the VC lost an estimated 50,000 troops and the US lost around 9.500. It was a decisive victory for the American Military and the VC was finished. Cronkite flew to VietNam, put on a helmet and flack jacket pretending he was under fire and told America thet Tet was a "stalemate". Instead of celebrating a victory LBJ tearfully threw in the towel and told the world he had enough. At that moment the utter defeat of VC forces was turned around and Giap went from the goat (facing execution?) to the hero thanks to Walter Cronkite.

Once again caught up in the kill statistics. That kind of proved to be useless during the war

Do you really think 9500 US casualties in one battle is acceptable as long as we kill more of them?

common knowledge among our own staff at west point is, attrition is not a strategy, its a confession of grand tactical and strategic exhaustion. Westmoreland tried it anyway....

 

[whitehall]

By the time the series of battles known as the Tet offensive ended in 1968 the VC lost an estimated 50,000 troops and the US lost around 9.500. It was a decisive victory for the American Military and the VC was finished. Cronkite flew to VietNam, put on a helmet and flack jacket pretending he was under fire and told America thet Tet was a "stalemate". Instead of celebrating a victory LBJ tearfully threw in the towel and told the world he had enough. At that moment the utter defeat of VC forces was turned around and Giap went from the goat (facing execution?) to the hero thanks to Walter Cronkite.

Once again caught up in the kill statistics. That kind of proved to be useless during the war

Do you really think 9500 US casualties in one battle is acceptable as long as we kill more of them?

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

 

[rightwinger]

By the time the series of battles known as the Tet offensive ended in 1968 the VC lost an estimated 50,000 troops and the US lost around 9.500. It was a decisive victory for the American Military and the VC was finished. Cronkite flew to VietNam, put on a helmet and flack jacket pretending he was under fire and told America thet Tet was a "stalemate". Instead of celebrating a victory LBJ tearfully threw in the towel and told the world he had enough. At that moment the utter defeat of VC forces was turned around and Giap went from the goat (facing execution?) to the hero thanks to Walter Cronkite.

Once again caught up in the kill statistics. That kind of proved to be useless during the war

Do you really think 9500 US casualties in one battle is acceptable as long as we kill more of them?

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

Count the dead?

Are you kidding? Do you have any concept of the tactical and political realities of war?

You don't fight wars like you play fantasy football

 

[whitehall]

Once again caught up in the kill statistics. That kind of proved to be useless during the war

Do you really think 9500 US casualties in one battle is acceptable as long as we kill more of them?

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

Count the dead?

Are you kidding? Do you have any concept of the tactical and political realities of war?

You don't fight wars like you play fantasy football

The tactical reality of Giap's "leadership" was that he was a butcher who cared nothing about his troops. Why the left admires him as a hero is anyone's guess. The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration). The bottom line is that Giap isn't a military hero but he might be considered a political hero to the radical left. Jose is off the charts but you would assume that saner Americans wouldn't be sending Giap birthday cards.

 

[Trajan]

By the time the series of battles known as the Tet offensive ended in 1968 the VC lost an estimated 50,000 troops and the US lost around 9.500. It was a decisive victory for the American Military and the VC was finished. Cronkite flew to VietNam, put on a helmet and flack jacket pretending he was under fire and told America thet Tet was a "stalemate". Instead of celebrating a victory LBJ tearfully threw in the towel and told the world he had enough. At that moment the utter defeat of VC forces was turned around and Giap went from the goat (facing execution?) to the hero thanks to Walter Cronkite.

Once again caught up in the kill statistics. That kind of proved to be useless during the war

Do you really think 9500 US casualties in one battle is acceptable as long as we kill more of them?

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

no, that won't work, the nor kors and the Chinese lost a huge number of men comparatively, in the Korean War, yet? we have a cease fire in effect for what? 50 years?

 

[Sallow]

Once again caught up in the kill statistics. That kind of proved to be useless during the war

Do you really think 9500 US casualties in one battle is acceptable as long as we kill more of them?

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

no, that won't work, the nor kors and the Chinese lost a huge number of men comparatively, in the Korean War, yet? we have a cease fire in effect for what? 50 years?

What about the Russians during WWII. Heck they lost millions. The Russian Front was a death sentence for Germans and Russians alike..

 

[whitehall]

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

no, that won't work, the nor kors and the Chinese lost a huge number of men comparatively, in the Korean War, yet? we have a cease fire in effect for what? 50 years?

What about the Russians during WWII. Heck they lost millions. The Russian Front was a death sentence for Germans and Russians alike..

There are two factors necessary to declare military victory. Storming a fortified fortress is the worst case scenrio in combat but Ike was prepared to throw enough bodies into the Normandy meat grinder until the Allies established... real estate. That's the second element to calculating military victory...taking and keeping real estate. Germany took Russian real estate but couldn't wthistand the other element needed for military victory ...low casualites. LBJ decided to fight a war in VietNam where real estate wouldn't matter. Every hard fought acre the US gained was given away the next day or a week later. It's impossible to declare victory unless you occupy the real estate of the defeated force. LBJ almost pulled it off after Tet when the VC was so worn down that it had no more troops but he chickened out and gave it all away.

 

[José]

Originally posted by whitehall
The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration).

As I said there are still hundreds of "whitehalls" in Russia today, orphans of the Cold War, coming up with dozens of excuses and pseudo-explanations to justify the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan. But they don't have that excuse in particular.

There was no political interference in military matters, no micromanagement of the war on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy. There was no "North Afghanistan" the Soviet military was prevented from carpet bombing... The entire country from North to South, East to West was declared a free strike zone and it didn't make any difference in the end.

Even if Hanoi were invaded and militarily occupied the north vietnamese would simply retreat into the jungle and start a guerrilla resistance movement, vietcong style (that's exactly what they did to fight the japanese occupation of Hanoi in the 40's).

But nevermind... Whitehall is a fanatic right-winger who simply can't bring himself to admit the fact that America didn't fight the communist ideology in Vietnam but a genuine, grassroots anti-colonialist, independence movement.

 

[Trajan]

Originally posted by whitehall
The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration).

As I said there are still hundreds of "whitehalls" in Russia today, orphans of the Cold War, coming up with dozens of excuses and pseudo-explanations to justify the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan. But they don't have that excuse in particular.

There was no political interference in military matters, no micromanagement of the war on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy. There was no "North Afghanistan" the Soviet military was prevented from carpet bombing... The entire country from North to South, East to West was declared a free strike zone and it didn't make any difference in the end.

Even if Hanoi were invaded and militarily occupied the north vietnamese would simply retreat into the jungle and start a guerrilla resistance movement, vietcong style (that's exactly what they did to fight the japanese occupation of Hanoi in the 40's).

But nevermind... Whitehall is a fanatic right-winger who simply can't bring himself to admit the fact that America didn't fight the communist ideology in Vietnam but a genuine, grassroots anti-colonialist, independence movement.

I suggest you expand your scope and read more. thats poppycock. if that were so then there never would have been say a TET because, there would have been no Ho Chi Minh trail hence Northern troops to carry out the bulk of the heavy lifting.

 

[daveman]

Clean up when you're done.

At least I choose my heroes carefully, which is more than I can say about you, daveman.

You're a grotesque caricature of a mentally retarded super patriotic american clown who's never seen a US soldier's asshole he didn't want to lick to help him save on toilet paper no matter how unjust and immoral his "service" was.

The Sixties called. They want their stupid back.

I told them that you're bitterly clinging to it. They understood.

 

[daveman]

Originally posted by Sallow
No please..don't hold back.

Mild jabs always deserve overwhelmingly disgusting insults as a retort.

Sallow, are you sure you even read daveman’s post??

“Clean up when you're done.”

Since when “José is sucking Gen. Giap’s cock/giving Giap a blowjob” is a “mild jab”??

If this remark fits your definition of a “mild jab” I don’t want to get any boxing lessons from you : )

That wasn't my meaning. I leave using homosexuality as an insult to leftists.

I meant you were jacking off to a dead Commie.

And you are.

 

[whitehall]

Originally posted by whitehall
The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration).

As I said there are still hundreds of "whitehalls" in Russia today, orphans of the Cold War, coming up with dozens of excuses and pseudo-explanations to justify the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan. But they don't have that excuse in particular.

There was no political interference in military matters, no micromanagement of the war on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy. There was no "North Afghanistan" the Soviet military was prevented from carpet bombing... The entire country from North to South, East to West was declared a free strike zone and it didn't make any difference in the end.

Even if Hanoi were invaded and militarily occupied the north vietnamese would simply retreat into the jungle and start a guerrilla resistance movement, vietcong style (that's exactly what they did to fight the japanese occupation of Hanoi in the 40's).

I suggest you expand your scope and read more. thats poppycock. if that were so then there never would have been say a TET because, there would have been no Ho Chi Minh trail hence Northern troops to carry out the bulk of the heavy lifting.

It's simple lefties. Expand your scope from your knee-jerk supporting of butchers like Giap just because he was on the other side. Research his record for God's sake instead of making him a hero of the revolution. . I'll admit that the VietNam war was badly run by the US if you admit that the skinny ass VC general was just another fanatic with little tactical skill.

 

[daveman]

Originally posted by whitehall
The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration).

As I said there are still hundreds of "whitehalls" in Russia today, orphans of the Cold War, coming up with dozens of excuses and pseudo-explanations to justify the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan. But they don't have that excuse in particular.

There was no political interference in military matters, no micromanagement of the war on the part of the Soviet bureaucracy. There was no "North Afghanistan" the Soviet military was prevented from carpet bombing... The entire country from North to South, East to West was declared a free strike zone and it didn't make any difference in the end.

Even if Hanoi were invaded and militarily occupied the north vietnamese would simply retreat into the jungle and start a guerrilla resistance movement, vietcong style (that's exactly what they did to fight the japanese occupation of Hanoi in the 40's).

But nevermind... Whitehall is a fanatic right-winger who simply can't bring himself to admit the fact that America didn't fight the communist ideology in Vietnam but a genuine, grassroots anti-colonialist, independence movement.

Lenin is dead. His useful idiots are not.

 

[whitehall]

Come on lefties. You know Jose is an off the charts left wing anti-American radical. Why do you support the notion that Giap was a hero? Is it a knee jerk reaction to the crap you have been taught in public school? Maybe Michael Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental illness.

 

[rightwinger]

Come on lefties. You know Jose is an off the charts left wing anti-American radical. Why do you support the notion that Giap was a hero? Is it a knee jerk reaction to the crap you have been taught in public school? Maybe Michael Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental illness.

Guess what?

Giaps side won. He led an army against overwhelming odds and won. Today, his country is independent and he is their George Washington. It's not anti American, it's the way things are

 

[whitehall]

Come on lefties. You know Jose is an off the charts left wing anti-American radical. Why do you support the notion that Giap was a hero? Is it a knee jerk reaction to the crap you have been taught in public school? Maybe Michael Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental illness.

Guess what?

Giaps side won. He led an army against overwhelming odds and won. Today, his country is independent and he is their George Washington. It's not anti American, it's the way things are

There it is folks, directly from rightwinger who is really a leftwinger. Giap's side won and therefore regardless of his ability as a general and his savage atrosities towards South Vietnamese civilians he should be considered to be on the same scale as George Washington. I rest my case about Michael Savage's opinion of liberalism.

 

[rightwinger]

The only way you determine victory or defeat in this scenario is to count the dead. The V.C lost 50,000 troops. Even Giap admitted long after the war that he had no troops left after Tet. Even ignorant lefties should understand that Tet was a defeat and Giap was a fanatic and a failure before Cronkite came along to save his skinny ass.

Count the dead?

Are you kidding? Do you have any concept of the tactical and political realities of war?

You don't fight wars like you play fantasy football

The tactical reality of Giap's "leadership" was that he was a butcher who cared nothing about his troops. Why the left admires him as a hero is anyone's guess. The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration). The bottom line is that Giap isn't a military hero but he might be considered a political hero to the radical left. Jose is off the charts but you would assume that saner Americans wouldn't be sending Giap birthday cards.

The tactical reality was that North Vietnam was willing to fight to the last man and we weren't. Why? Because it was their country. Just like the Russians lost millions more casualties than the Germans, they won because they were fighting for mother Russia.

So .....35 years later

What would have been the difference if we had won? Vietnam is now a US trade partner. US tourists visit frequently. Would it have been worth another 50,000 US lives to "win" Vietnam?

 

[whitehall]

Count the dead?

Are you kidding? Do you have any concept of the tactical and political realities of war?

You don't fight wars like you play fantasy football

The tactical reality of Giap's "leadership" was that he was a butcher who cared nothing about his troops. Why the left admires him as a hero is anyone's guess. The political reality was that LBJ was a fool who set the rules so that the US would win every battle and lose the war (during a republican administration). The bottom line is that Giap isn't a military hero but he might be considered a political hero to the radical left. Jose is off the charts but you would assume that saner Americans wouldn't be sending Giap birthday cards.

The tactical reality was that North Vietnam was willing to fight to the last man and we weren't. Why? Because it was their country. Just like the Russians lost millions more casualties than the Germans, they won because they were fighting for mother Russia.

So .....35 years later

What would have been the difference if we had won? Vietnam is now a US trade partner. US tourists visit frequently. Would it have been worth another 50,000 US lives to "win" Vietnam?

We don't know if North VietNam was willing to fight to the last man. General Giap's lack of leadership resulted in a million, one hundred thousand deaths under his command. It hardly qualifies him as the top ten of military leaders in history except in the minds of radical lefties who (I hate to say it) celebrated every US Military death in a war they considered illegal.