Cluster Munitions

[editec]

I do accept the fact that modern warfare is against the economy as well as the military of opposing forces. I do acknowledge that infrastructure is also targetted. the point I am trying to make is that the US military targetting process DOES NOT involve deliberately finding the largest concentration of civilians it can find and dropping bombs or artillery on their heads. If that were true fallujah would be a smoking hole in the ground.

Again...please stop rewriting what I wrote to make you point as in

the US military targetting process DOES NOT involve deliberately finding the largest concentration of civilians ..

By responding to what I have NOT said, you are implying that I have written the above.

I wrote, and meant ONLY what I wrote.

Not your rewrite of it; not what you imagine my take is on the issue at hand; not your interpretation of what I must have meant, but what I wrote and nothing else, okay?

This moving the goal posts thing (that to some extent we all do, and usually by honest mistake) only serves to put us at odds, when in fact there is little that you and actually do disagree on regards this subject.

Do bear in mind my original response, the one you responded to, was in response to something somebody else wrote, and my response was to a very specific point they'd made.

Inventing stuff that you imagine I must therefore mean, (like for example targeting "the largest concentration of civilians" serves no purpose other than to make me think you want to debate an issue with a strawman and not with me.

Okay?

Is that clear?

If you take exception with something I said, QUOTE ME, and don't characterize what you think I must have meant, and then chasten me for your hazy rendidtion of what you think I must have meant.

In other words, please stop leaping to conclusions about who I am and what I think.

I, not you, am the world's leading expert in what I think, no less than YOU and you alone can tell me what YOU think.

Fair?

 

[CSM]

Again...please stop rewriting what I wrote to make you point as in



By responding to what I have NOT said, you are implying that I have written the above.

I wrote, and meant ONLY what I wrote.

Not your rewrite of it; not what you imagine my take is on the issue at hand; not your interpretation of what I must have meant, but what I wrote and nothing else, okay?

This moving the goal posts thing (that to some extent we all do, and usually by honest mistake) only serves to put us at odds, when in fact there is little that you and actually do disagree on regards this subject.

Do bear in mind my original response, the one you responded to, was in response to something somebody else wrote, and my response was to a very specific point they'd made.

Inventing stuff that you imagine I must therefore mean, (like for example targeting "the largest concentration of civilians" serves no purpose other than to make me think you want to debate an issue with a strawman and not with me.

Okay?

Is that clear?

If you take exception with something I said, QUOTE ME, and don't characterize what you think I must have meant, and then chasten me for your hazy rendidtion of what you think I must have meant.

In other words, please stop leaping to conclusions about who I am and what I think.

I, not you, am the world's leading expert in what I think, no less than YOU and you alone can tell me what YOU think.

Fair?

Fair.

I presume I can expect the same from you.

 

[Tech_Esq]

My assertions to the contrary are based on the military's own reports on how the war was conducted.

they are the truth.

Feel free to read up on the subject and get back to me.

If you find that I am wrong, that we did NOT target civilian targets like infrastructure supporting water supplies, electronic power stations intersections, and so forth, let me know.

Otherwise, accept the fact that modern warfare is warfare against the economy as well as the military, just as I am more than willing to accept that our military, when it has an overwhelming advantage, does its best to limit civilian casualties.

But by all mean do stop trying to rewrite my points (which are subtle, but written well enough for you to understand them) into some silly, liberal, kneejerking, anti-military nonsense.

Thanks.

First, there is nothing wrong with CBUs except they sometimes leave residual unexploded bomblets. That's a problem, but we have been working for years to address malfunctions. It certainly is not the desired effect. When I call an airstrike in, it isn't because I want only 75% of the munitions to go off. By God, I want 110% of the munitions to go off, 150% if I can get the enemy to cooperate. We've made munitions like FASCAM that will explode after a certain (short) time period if they have not otherwise gone off. So, it isn't like we aren't working on it.

Total war. This is the concept that you are referring to. This was first exercised on a mass scale in WWII. We don't use total war and never have. Even in WWII, our version of warfare was rather more circumspect than the other, but the focus was on winning. As between two possible means of attack, the one that would best guarantee victory was used. You may question whether the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were "necessary" to achieve victory, but the point is that we do not use total war methods now.

That said, it is true that we recognize that damaging the will to fight is a primary vector in achieving victory in battle. Depending on your formal training in politics, you may recognize this formula Pp=L + P + I(S x W). If you can cancel the "W" you go a long way in your efforts to win. That's how we were asymmetrically beaten in VietNam. It had little or nothing to do with the battlefield, they just beat our will to win. The same nearly happened with Iraq. Our will to win was badly damaged, though not so much by enemy efforts this time, but by their surrogates in our media constantly pounding defeatist rhetoric.

Your current discussion about determining military targets demonstrates a failure to distinguish dual use infrastructure. And electrical grid helps both the opposing military and the civilians. A road or bridge likewise. Some things are clearly off-limits, such as hospitals, while others are of no military significance (usually) and are therefore off-limits (museums, houses of worship). Provision is made for what happens if the enemy forces you to target an otherwise off-limits structure. It is perfectly legitimate to target dual use infrastructure when making a target list. It may be perfectly legitimate to target purely civilian targets depending on the situation. (For instance, the minnerette of Mosque being used by a forward observer to call artillery fire on approaching US troops. That FO just made that mosque a legitimate military target.)

What you clearly seem not to understand is the capabilities of our military. You haven't communicated your understanding of the SUPREME restraint we exercise at ALL times in our targeting and munitions selection. You can compare the way we fight to what the Russians are doing in Georgia. The two of them laid smoking waste to several towns. We hardly ever did such a thing (in Iraq or Afghanistan). It wasn't because we couldn't do it, it was out of EXTREME restraint. This whole thing could have been a much different looking war from the civilian prospective. If we didn't have in our mind that our argument was not with the people but with others. With conventional munitions we could have laid complete waste to any city in Iraq in one day.

But we didn't do that. We see no appreciation from the liberal body counters for the fact that isn't how the US fights wars. Until we see that kind of understanding, we'll continue to treat your opinions with utter contempt.

 

[CSM]

First, There Is Nothing Wrong With Cbus Except They Sometimes Leave Residual Unexploded Bomblets. That's A Problem, But We Have Been Working For Years To Address Malfunctions. It Certainly Is Not The Desired Effect. When I Call An Airstrike In, It Isn't Because I Want Only 75% Of The Munitions To Go Off. By God, I Want 110% Of The Munitions To Go Off, 150% If I Can Get The Enemy To Cooperate. We've Made Munitions Like Fascam That Will Explode After A Certain (short) Time Period If They Have Not Otherwise Gone Off. So, It Isn't Like We Aren't Working On It.

Total War. This Is The Concept That You Are Referring To. This Was First Exercised On A Mass Scale In Wwii. We Don't Use Total War And Never Have. Even In Wwii, Our Version Of Warfare Was Rather More Circumspect Than The Other, But The Focus Was On Winning. As Between Two Possible Means Of Attack, The One That Would Best Guarantee Victory Was Used. You May Question Whether The Fire Bombing Of Tokyo And Dresden Were "necessary" To Achieve Victory, But The Point Is That We Do Not Use Total War Methods Now.

That Said, It Is True That We Recognize That Damaging The Will To Fight Is A Primary Vector In Achieving Victory In Battle. Depending On Your Formal Training In Politics, You May Recognize This Formula Pp=l + P + I(s X W). If You Can Cancel The "w" You Go A Long Way In Your Efforts To Win. That's How We Were Asymmetrically Beaten In Vietnam. It Had Little Or Nothing To Do With The Battlefield, Then Just Beat Our Will To Win. The Same Nearly Happened With Iraq. Our Will To Win Was Badly Damaged, Though Not So Much By Enemy Efforts This Time, But By Their Surrogates In Our Media Constantly Pounding Defeatist Rhetoric.

Your Current Discussion About Determining Military Targets Demonstrates A Failure To Distinguish Dual Use Infrastructure. And Electrical Grid Helps Both The Opposing Military And The Civilians. A Road Or Bridge Likewise. Some Things Are Clearly Off-limits, Such As Hospitals, While Others Are Of No Military Significance (usually) And Are Therefore Off-limits (museums, Houses Of Worship). Provision Is Made For What Happens If The Enemy Forces You To Target An Otherwise Off-limits Structure. It Is Perfectly Legitimate To Target Dual Use Infrastructure When Making A Target List. It May Be Perfectly Legitimate To Target Purely Civilian Targets Depending On The Situation. (for Instance, The Minnerette Of Mosque Being Used By A Forward Observer To Call Artillery Fire On Approaching Us Troops. That Fo Just Made That Mosque A Legitimate Military Target.)

What You Clearly Seem Not To Understand Is The Capabilities Of Our Military. You Haven't Communicated Your Understanding Of The Supreme Restraint We Exercise At All Times In Our Targeting And Munitions Selection. You Can Compare The Way We Fight To What The Russians Are Doing In Georgia. The Two Of Them Laid Smoking Waste To Several Towns. We Hardly Ever Did Such A Thing (in Iraq Or Afghanistan). It Wasn't Because We Couldn't Do It, It Was Out Of Extreme Restraint. This Whole Thing Could Have Been A Much Different Looking War From The Civilian Prospective. If We Didn't Have In Our Mind That Our Argument Was Not With The People But With Others. With Conventional Munitions We Could Have Laid Complete Waste To Any City In Iraq In One Day.

But We Didn't Do That. We See No Appreciation From The Liberal Body Counters For The Fact That Isn't How The Us Fights Wars. Until We See That Kind Of Understanding, We'll Continue To Treat Your Opinions With Utter Contempt.

Exactly!!!!

 

[Moon]

My assertions to the contrary are based on the military's own reports on how the war was conducted.

they are the truth.

Feel free to read up on the subject and get back to me.

If you find that I am wrong, that we did NOT target civilian targets like infrastructure supporting water supplies, electronic power stations intersections, and so forth, let me know.

Otherwise, accept the fact that modern warfare is warfare against the economy as well as the military, just as I am more than willing to accept that our military, when it has an overwhelming advantage, does its best to limit civilian casualties.

But by all mean do stop trying to rewrite my points (which are subtle, but written well enough for you to understand them) into some silly, liberal, kneejerking, anti-military nonsense.

Thanks.

Infrastructure such as roads, power generation, bridges, etc. are most definitely military targets. Military power can't be projected without those things. It just happens that most militaries and the civilian populations share the same infrastructure. What would be your solution?

 

[Gunny]

Then why take me to task?



When you fire into civilian population centers, as we did by the when we we sent thousands of "smart" bombs (which turned out not to be so smart as we'd been lead to believe) you know perfectly well you will be killing civilians.

The distinction you are making is one without any real difference.



Nor I. Wars are fought today to cripple economies as much as armies. hence the wanton destruction of civilian targets (wehile perhaps regretted after the fact) is no less part of the plan now as in the past.

yes if we have overwhelming power, we can afford to be more humane, but the fact is that we will (and probably should) take the most adventageous route to victory.

If that means we knowingly are going to kill civilians, so be it.

What I will not stand is the bullshit that we are doing this by accident.

Nonsense, we know perfectly well we are killing civilians. After all we TARGET civilian structures like water, and power and bridges.

You seem to be saying that we ONLY target military targets.

This is not supported by the government's own reports about how the Iraqi conflict was conducted so why do you believe it?




Well, you're wrong.




Yeah? Well, who did you think was manning the water supplies, electrical stations and so forth? Saddam?



No, you went to great lengths to target significant military and PUBLIC INFASTRUCTURE in order to cripple not only the military, but the society which made that military viable.

AS YOU SHOULD HAVE, incidently, given the way modern wars are conducted.

Stop bullshitting yourself.

Wars against nations ARE wars against national ecopnomies as much as they are wars against national militaries.

They always have been and they always will be.

While I do not doubt that we seek to minimize civilian casualties when possible, it is SELDOM possible to do that very effectively IF we are planning on winning that war as quickly and with the minimum casualties to our side AND THEIRS as possible.

I am realist, CMS, not come cardboard cutout of a weapy liberal you seem to think I am.

I'm not sure what you are arguing about. CSM is NOT wrong. Neither are you. Noncombatant civilians are NOT targetted as a matter of doctrine and doing so WILL result in being relieved of command and most likely court martialed.

Do we target military targets and civilian infrastructure that supports the military? Yes, we do. Is the intent to kill civilians? No it isn't. It's to destroy the enemy's war-making capabilities.

Have there been instances where civilians have been targetted and killed? Most assuredly. Have their been instances where the people doing so were not caught nor punished? Most assuredly. Have civilians been targetted in past? Yes.

Your example fails to point out that the Germans bombed London first. It also fails to point out that the method of total warfare used in WWII would no tbe acceptable today what with the unrealistic expectation of a surgical war that kills only enemy combatants.

That does not change the fact one bit that noncombatants are not targetted as a matter of US military doctrine, and every effort is made to avoid noncombatant casualties.

 

[editec]

First, there is nothing wrong with CBUs except they sometimes leave residual unexploded bomblets. That's a problem, but we have been working for years to address malfunctions. It certainly is not the desired effect. When I call an airstrike in, it isn't because I want only 75% of the munitions to go off. By God, I want 110% of the munitions to go off, 150% if I can get the enemy to cooperate. We've made munitions like FASCAM that will explode after a certain (short) time period if they have not otherwise gone off. So, it isn't like we aren't working on it.

Yup.

Total war. This is the concept that you are referring to.

No actually I'm referring to the wars we actually fought in the ways we actually fought them. Don't play the overstate my case game, sport.

I wrote what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written.

This was first exercised on a mass scale in WWII. We don't use total war and never have. Even in WWII, our version of warfare was rather more circumspect than the other, but the focus was on winning. As between two possible means of attack, the one that would best guarantee victory was used. You may question whether the fire bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were "necessary" to achieve victory, but the point is that we do not use total war methods now.

I didn't question anything. I noted it.

That said, it is true that we recognize that damaging the will to fight is a primary vector in achieving victory in battle. Depending on your formal training in politics, you may recognize this formula Pp=L + P + I(S x W). If you can cancel the "W" you go a long way in your efforts to win. That's how we were asymmetrically beaten in VietNam. It had little or nothing to do with the battlefield, they just beat our will to win. The same nearly happened with Iraq. Our will to win was badly damaged, though not so much by enemy efforts this time, but by their surrogates in our media constantly pounding defeatist rhetoric.

We got our asses kicked in viet Nam. WE lost because we were god damned stupid and arrogant. You can apply all the math of death you want and the numbers still say the same thing.

War is more than just how many people you beat, it's also how many people you win over.

the arrogance we displayed in Viet Nam, their sheer pig headed density of our leadership (Dems, BTW) was appalling.

Your current discussion about determining military targets demonstrates a failure to distinguish dual use infrastructure.

You wish...

And electrical grid helps both the opposing military and the civilians. A road or bridge likewise. Some things are clearly off-limits, such as hospitals, while others are of no military significance (usually) and are therefore off-limits (museums, houses of worship). Provision is made for what happens if the enemy forces you to target an otherwise off-limits structure. It is perfectly legitimate to target dual use infrastructure when making a target list. It may be perfectly legitimate to target purely civilian targets depending on the situation. (For instance, the minnerette of Mosque being used by a forward observer to call artillery fire on approaching US troops. That FO just made that mosque a legitimate military target.)

I can assure you that attempting to speak down to me isn't going to impress me.

You don't have the gravitas, and pretending that I missed the obvious (like the electric grid serves military and civilaians alike) proves it. I made it perfectly clear why we took out infrastructure and why we should have, multiple times in multiple posts, already.

What you clearly seem not to understand is the capabilities of our military. You haven't communicated your understanding of the SUPREME restraint we exercise at ALL times in our targeting and munitions selection.

Oh, what pompous blather.

I clearly understand that we could have leveled the nation.

You can compare the way we fight to what the Russians are doing in Georgia. The two of them laid smoking waste to several towns. We hardly ever did such a thing (in Iraq or Afghanistan). It wasn't because we couldn't do it, it was out of EXTREME restraint. This whole thing could have been a much different looking war from the civilian prospective. If we didn't have in our mind that our argument was not with the people but with others. With conventional munitions we could have laid complete waste to any city in Iraq in one day.

Yes? No shit. I presume you are going to make a point I haven't already made fairly soon?

But we didn't do that. We see no appreciation from the liberal body counters for the fact that isn't how the US fights wars. Until we see that kind of understanding, we'll continue to treat your opinions with utter contempt.

What a load of horse pucky.

Mischaracterize what I said, turn it into you imaginary idiotic liberal pap, and then tell me that when I stop thinking what I don't think, I'll gain your respect?

This is how you practice the law, is it?

If that sort of sophomoric argumentitive technique passes as clever in your domain, those judges must be dumber than posts.

 

[dilloduck]

We didn't get the shit kicked out of us in Nam. We just quit.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry to abuse you but your full of shit. We did not in fact lose in Viet Nam militarily and we sure as hell did not get our asses kicked. Our purpose was to stabilize the South and allow it to survive long enough to be able to hold its own.

Nixon accomplished that before he pulled our combat troops out. The South survived for 4 years with no US Combat troops at all. And they sure as shit did not fall to an internal revolution, the revolutionaries all died in 1968 at the Tet Offensive.

South Viet Nam fell to a full scale invasion of the entire North Vietnamese Army. 25 Divisions invaded and over ran the 11 Divisions the South had. We lost politically and we sold out an ally we had promised to defend. Starting in 73 the democrats began cutting the aid to the South. We had promised naval air and artillery support in case of an Invasion per the Peace Treaty signed in Paris and the North agreed not to invade if we pulled out.

By 74 the South was having troubles keeping their equipment running because the Democrats kept cutting the funds to help them. By the Invasion in 75 the hardware was in critical shape. The South had something like 15 or 20 Armored Cav Squadrons. And those able put up a hell of a fight. But the reality is most of their tanks ran out of fuel, ammo or broke down , they did not get destroyed in battle.

Further the Democrats REFUSED to honor the Treaty and refused to aid the South with Air, naval and artillery support.

In fact read the words of the North Vietnamese Commanders. the 75 attack was supposed to just be a probe in force to test if we would honor our pact. When it became clear we were not doing so they changed the probe to a full scale invasion. The Democrats and Gerald Ford sold out South Vietnam.

You need to learn a little REAL history.

 

[editec]

Sorry to abuse you but your full of shit. We did not in fact lose in Viet Nam militarily and we sure as hell did not get our asses kicked. Our purpose was to stabilize the South and allow it to survive long enough to be able to hold its own.

Yes, how'd that work out for us?

Nixon accomplished that before he pulled our combat troops out. The South survived for 4 years with no US Combat troops at all. And they sure as shit did not fall to an internal revolution, the revolutionaries all died in 1968 at the Tet Offensive.

Remind me again...who took over South Viet Nam?

South Viet Nam fell to a full scale invasion of the entire North Vietnamese Army. 25 Divisions invaded and over ran the 11 Divisions the South had. We lost politically and we sold out an ally we had promised to defend. Starting in 73 the democrats began cutting the aid to the South. We had promised naval air and artillery support in case of an Invasion per the Peace Treaty signed in Paris and the North agreed not to invade if we pulled out.

The north lied to us and invaded and what...you thought we didn't know they would do that?

By 74 the South was having troubles keeping their equipment running because the Democrats kept cutting the funds to help them. By the Invasion in 75 the hardware was in critical shape. The South had something like 15 or 20 Armored Cav Squadrons. And those able put up a hell of a fight. But the reality is most of their tanks ran out of fuel, ammo or broke down , they did not get destroyed in battle.

Further the Democrats REFUSED to honor the Treaty and refused to aid the South with Air, naval and artillery support.

Yup. America had had it fill of supporting South Viet Nam, to be sure.

In fact read the words of the North Vietnamese Commanders. the 75 attack was supposed to just be a probe in force to test if we would honor our pact. When it became clear we were not doing so they changed the probe to a full scale invasion. The Democrats and Gerald Ford sold out South Vietnam.

You need to learn a little REAL history.

Odd...I agree with the history as you just presented it.

But I have a different view of what it all really means.

Different presuppositions lead to different conclusions, even when people can agree on the basic facts.

American soldiers fought valiently in an ill concieved war.

It didn't matter how many military victories we won, as long as we couldn't win the hearts and minds of enough Vietnamese.

This is a lesson I dearly wished we'd learned something from, but apparently its a lesson we still need to learn.

The military cannot solve all problems, sport.

No matter how good it is, it is not always the solution because after the war comes the peace.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, how'd that work out for us?



Remind me again...who took over South Viet Nam?



The north lied to us and invaded and what...you thought we didn't know they would do that?



Yup. America had had it fill of supporting South Viet Nam, to be sure.



Odd...I agree with the history as you just presented it.

But I have a different view of what it all really means.

Different presuppositions lead to different conclusions, even when people can agree on the basic facts.

American soldiers fought valiently in an ill concieved war.

It didn't matter how many military victories we won, as long as we couldn't win the hearts and minds of enough Vietnamese.

This is a lesson I dearly wished we'd learned something from, but apparently its a lesson we still need to learn.

The military cannot solve all problems, sport.

No matter how good it is, it is not always the solution because after the war comes the peace.

What part of "North invaded" don't you grasp? There was no internal revolution that died in 68. The PEOPLE of South Vietnam fielded their OWN military and held their own till 75 with OUT US troops.

What part of 25 NORTH Vietnamese Divisions invading escapes your grasp? What part of the North admitting they would not have done so if we had honored our commitment don't you understand?

The Democrats sold out South Vietnam. Just like they have tried to sell out Iraq.

 

[editec]

What part of "North invaded" don't you grasp? There was no internal revolution that died in 68. The PEOPLE of South Vietnam fielded their OWN military and held their own till 75 with OUT US troops.

What part of 25 NORTH Vietnamese Divisions invading escapes your grasp? What part of the North admitting they would not have done so if we had honored our commitment don't you understand?

The Democrats sold out South Vietnam. Just like they have tried to sell out Iraq.

You really are offended that I'm not one of your imaginary unthinking liberals, aren't you?

I mean it really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

Sorry man, I'm not your monkey boy.

When you start reading what I say, and responding to the sublties of my aguments, I might start taking you seriously.

Until then?

You can just keep tilting at those liberal strawmen you create, sport.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We got our asses kicked in viet Nam. WE lost because we were god damned stupid and arrogant. You can apply all the math of death you want and the numbers still say the same thing.

War is more than just how many people you beat, it's also how many people you win over.

the arrogance we displayed in Viet Nam, their sheer pig headed density of our leadership (Dems, BTW) was appalling.

"We got our asses kicked"? This would imply on the battlefield. Dates and places sporto....list them. Tell me which battles in VietNam we lost.

What we did lose was the US will to fight. I don't believe we were politically arrogant, I think we were politically too clever by half. Read the Pentagon Papers, Johnson was pathetic war leader and his running of the war from Washington got the US in the situation it was in 1968 and 1969. He was trying not to lose the war instead of trying to win it. His problem was hen never came to terms with the nature of the war he was fighting. That he was punching himself out on a surrogate for the USSR and China. We returned the favor in Afghanistan for the Russians.

What a load of horse pucky.

Mischaracterize what I said, turn it into you imaginary idiotic liberal pap, and then tell me that when I stop thinking what I don't think, I'll gain your respect?

This is how you practice the law, is it?

If that sort of sophomoric argumentitive technique passes as clever in your domain, those judges must be dumber than posts.

Cute.

Sorry I didn't bother to read every single post you made on this thread. If you think there is something I've mischaracterized, please clarify what it was. I'm not here to argue with myself. I think you are a worthwhile adversary on the other side of some issues.

I'll admit that I must have missed the actual argument you were stating and would request the favor of having you restate it for me.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As a follow up to this discussion -- in case anyone cares:

In another development, Human Rights Watch said it has uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs on Georgia.

The New York-based human rights group says the munitions were dropped on Gori and the town of Ruisi, killing 11 people and wounding dozens more

Cluster bombs contain hundreds of smaller explosives that detonate over a wide area. More than 100 countries have agreed to ban their use.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You really are offended that I'm not one of your imaginary unthinking liberals, aren't you?

I mean it really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

Sorry man, I'm not your monkey boy.

When you start reading what I say, and responding to the sublties of my aguments, I might start taking you seriously.

Until then?

You can just keep tilting at those liberal strawmen you create, sport.

You claimed since we did not win "the hearts and minds" we lost. That would imply that the South fell from within, which as I have shown and history proves is simply NOT the truth. The South beat back an Invasion in 72 ON their own with our artillery naval and air support, they lost a few provinces in the fight but by 74 were in the process of retaking them. Again the 72 fight was an EXTERNAL invasion, NO internal revolution existed in South Vietnam after Tet in 68. The only people in black pajamas after that were North Vietnamese troops pretending to be insurgents. Check your facts.

Again just for you. Nixon won the war and got us out in 71. The democratic Congress and Gerald Ford handed South Vietnam to the North in 75. Again for the slow because of an EXTERNAL invasion by 25 DIVISIONS of North Vietnamese TROOPS. Almost the entire NVA.

The south fought hard against that invasion. the lasted a month without our support. And then thousands upon thousands risked their lives crossing Cambodia and taking to sea in rickety sinking boats to escape. Dieing in the thousands.

Remind me again how we lost because of "hearts and minds"?