General Giap Dead At 102
 

This general should be studied by any President who thinks invading a smaller weaker country is a slam dunk.


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...es-at-102?lite


This man lead a nation in a victory over the world's largest military and economic country.

Quote:
"We had to use the small against the big; backward weapons to defeat modern weapons," Giap said. "At the end, it was the human factor that determined the victory."


Another quote:
"We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."

He lost many many troops but felt the price was worth it.

That's what makes a war. Two sides with leaders who think it's 'worth it.'

In fact, it wasn't, for either side, and in the long run it didn't matter much who 'won.'

There's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time.
RIP You old devil. :rolleyes:

Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Consider it done.

One should always show respect to a worthy adversary.

Giap was our enemy, but he was definitely a worthy adversary.

Dave

They had the will, we didn't.

Pete

We haven't had "the will" since 1945. So, when are we going to stop hearing about how bad ass we are and just admit that we don't really like war?

I'm happy to admit we don't like it.

Pete

And, don't have the will to do it right anymore?

Saddams' military might see that differently :)

And Assad may disagree too. For not liking it we sure keep a hellofa army.

Pete

"Will", Pete, means public will and the will of the leaders they elect. It has little to do with the military itself.

Dave

Persons of reason and sanity and decency don't like war, but not everyone meets that description, alas.

"doing it right" has so many descriptions.

We don't have the will to conquer and 'pacify' a place like Iraq in the way that gives quick and effective (for a gnereation) results, but as that would have involved killing millions of them, I don't think that lack is actually a failing.

Vietnam paid too huge price for national identity.

South Vietnam could be like South Korea.

Not hardly, one of the reasons things went the way they did in 'Nam was the corruption if the leaders in the south.

With an aggressive enemy across their northern border for 60 years and counting? I think many Vietnamese would prefer their current status. Their economy is pretty decent shape, actually.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/fea...t-key-findings

I don't know about before that, but certainly for Vietnam and everything after that, it's been all about feeding the Military Industrial Complex.

And the MIC doesn't want to win, they want to keep the revenue stream flowing.

Ike, one of the last good Republicans IMO, really nailed it back in 1961.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y

you need to read Fire In The Lake by Frances Fitzgerald.

LBJ made the same mistake that you do...thinking that all Vietnam needed was infrastructure and Western imposed democracy. You should also check out the book by Halberstam called The Best and the Brightest. In short the author posits that South Vietnam was not really a nation since it could not exist without America propping it up.

We should have listened to Graham Greene.

We might indeed have lost SE Asia without the sacrifices made in Vietnam.

Pete

OMG! Any sacrifice rather than be a loser. Especially of an election.

Newsflash!!! We lost in Vietnam, Pete.

Really. Well you learn something new everyday ;)

Vietnam didn't happen in a vacuum.

Pete

and Laos and Cambodia. Dismally.

I did not know we ever had a Southeast Asia to lose:rolleyes:

Our fearless leaders at the time (new and post- new dealers) saw an arrow pointed right at Japan.

The commies were being very aggressive at that point, who knows what would've happened if we did nothing.

Pete

We wouldn't have this.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...we4fk9nBUQTE2D

Indeed. However, if enough there fell to the commies we might have faced a much worse enemy defending Japan and found ourselves back at it in Korea. Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines...

I'm not saying they were right. Just saying they had reasons.

Pete

Is that the story they are telling now? That Japan was in play as a domino? Never heard that tale with Japan in it before....

I believe what Elseberg believed. No president from Truman forward had any reason to think their Indochina policy would accomplish any necessary goal, expect the goal of pushing the ultimate disaster out past the next election.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...7042%2C1690895

Nah it's old hat - what they always believed, based on but not exclusive to Kissinger's memoirs and a book Dewey wrote after going on a state sponsored goodwill tour of SE Asia after he lost.

Pete